Template talk:Reference necessary

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect non-ambiguous English titles to Template:Citation needed, delete others, 24 January 2023, see discussion.
No consensus, 18 September 2009, see discussion.

Previous version of template[edit]

Discussion precluded by Deletion discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've just stumbled upon this template, and I have to say that I'm not a fan! Its use on an article results in something that looks pretty bad, and looks like the article's been vandalised; see e.g. Rabies#Symptoms. Is there are anything that can be done about the appearance?

In fact, use of this template is clearly non-standard; I would suggest that before it's used any further, it should be discussed at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Citing sources... Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very point is to make a poorly cited article look ugly, so that a WP:BOLD editor would be inclined to fixing it. It also makes unsourced material stand out, so that others may proceed with caution. On the Chinese and Russian Wikipedias, this is the only way of adding a "citation needed" tag. I throw my absolute support in phasing out "Template:Citation needed" in preference of this, as with other language Wikipedias. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oli, I also have just stumbled upon this, but I think it's a worthwhile idea. I'd be ok with making the highlighted color slightly more subtle. That said, I'd also be ok with a bot removing the template and text after a fixed period, such as 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lightened the color slightly. If anyone objects, then feel free to revert. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with the use of this template is that it is simply too ambiguous in its application. Have a look at this version of an article which was reviewed as a GAR. Entire paragraphs are encompassed as needing sources, although some, if not most of the content of the paragraphs is not contentious or really in need of support. The rationale for its use was that it makes it easier for the reviewer to not have to copy and paste examples of problems. However, by just highlighting the paragraph, one has no clue whatsoever what is being challenged. This is a sample paragraph that was singled out: "On 16 March 2002, he was the host on Saturday Night Live. In 2003, McKellen made a guest appearance as himself on the American cartoon show The Simpsons, in a special British-themed episode entitled "The Regina Monologues", along with Tony Blair and J. K. Rowling. In April and May 2005, he played the role of Mel Hutchwright in Granada Television's long running soap opera, Coronation Street, fulfilling a lifelong ambition. He is also known for his voicework, having narrated Richard Bell's Eighteen, as a grandfather who leaves his World War II memoirs on audiocassette for his teenage grandson." What is being challenged here? That he was on Saturday Night Live? That he voiced himself on The Simpsons? That he did a guest role on Coronation Street or that he narrated Eighteen? What about that is so controversial that we implemented an unsightly and unprofessional highlighting? Why would a Good Article reviewer be more interested in saving time in clarifying issues than specifically noting something that needs referencing? This template is a bad idea. That it has only been used on a few articles does not take away from the ambiguity that can result from its use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that if the highlighting were a good idea, it would be encompassed into the normal {{cn}} template, rather than having this breakaway template that only a handful of editors know about. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yuck! this should be deleted. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.221.202 (talk • contribs)

The current fix of this template looks horrendous. Wildhartlivie, your issue with the template is how it is used. The problem, then, is documentation. Fix the documentation, don’t discard the template. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water. Oli Filth, your issue is simply that others don’t use it enough. Lack of use may speak more to its being more recent than other templates (it came over from the French and Italian Wikipedias). This template is quite valuable in those instances where more than one contiguous sentence needs referencing. In those cases, {{Fact}}/{{cn}} is not sufficient since that template is only to be used for one sentence needing citation. No, the problem with this template is that the formerly very pale color was unilaterally changed by an editor who will not take the time to find a less bold color than the highlighter yellow he selected, despite this active editor being requested to do so. It just needs to be put back to its pale color. But, as it stands now it is awful! — Spike (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a while to find this page because I don't usually engage in this level of meta-wikipedia...

This template is terrible. Even with the slightly pale text it just distracts so much from the sentence being read. Isn't the obtrusive {{fact}} enough already? —76.112.201.245 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed in the debate on the template’s deletion, this template fills a gap between {{Citation needed}}, which is only for one unreferenced sentence, and {{Unreferenced section}}, which is for an entire unreferenced section. However, I agree with you 100% that it still doesn’t look good and needs to be improved. Since the deletion debate closed, another editor was working on improving it, but seems to have slipped away. How about instead of just saying that it’s terrible, you make a suggestion on how to improve it? Out of courtesy to the other fellow that was working on it, I was waiting, but maybe we should start trying to fix it ourselves. What do you suggest? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just made it darker. Is that an improvement? — SpikeToronto 05:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2009-10-04 & Usage[edit]

I have reverted this template to the version that it was on 2009-06-12 by PhilKnight. So far that is the least intrusive version that still achieves this template’s goals, while not giving rise to deletion debates, and outright removals of the template where it is used.
Next, as JackLumber correctly pointed out in the deletion debate, we need to figure out how to get this template to add pages on which it appears to the appropriate categories for pages needing citations. For example: Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Anyone know how to do that?
Please remember: This template does not replace {{Citation needed}}. These templates are mutually exclusive. (See Usage Summary below.) {{Reference necessary}} fills the gap between {{Citation needed}} and {{Unreferenced section}}. That is, {{Reference necessary}} is to be used where two or more contiguous sentences require verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). {{Citation needed}} is used where only one sentence requires verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). Finally, {{Unreferenced section}} is used where an entire section requires verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). This distinction needs to be made clear in the {{Reference necessary}} documentation. Between the two of us, I hope that JackLumber and I can improve the documentation, but any suggestions would be welcome.
Usage Summary:

{{Citation needed}}: → Used for one (1) sentence only.

{{Reference necessary}}: → Used for two or more (≥ 2 )contiguous sentences.

{{Unreferenced section}}: → Used for entire sections.

— SpikeToronto (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something I mentioned to SpikeToronto in user talk I think but worth repeating here: Citation isn't really about sentences but about facts. This template is useful for a) tagging several contiguous unsourced facts, in one sentence or across several, in the same paragraph or other unbroken block, and b) for tagging one specific fact that is unsourced among a pile of otherwise sourced ones. I've tried to have the docs reflect this, but if my prose sucks please work on it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Example Text"[edit]

Resolved

– Just a bug; fixed.

What's up with the text "Example Text" being put on every page this is used on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 07:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example? No joke intended, but a wikilink would let me see it. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 07:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you fixed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. With this edit, I think I fixed it. The other wikieditor had improved the template, but made a small error. I think it looks pretty good now. Thank you for pointing out the error! — Spike Toronto 07:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

Resolved

– Just an FYI.

The version of this template dated 03:29EST 23 January 2010, now causes any article on which this template is used to be added to Category:All articles with unsourced statements, Category:Articles with unsourced statements, and/or dated subcategories thereof. — Spike Toronto 08:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax[edit]

With this edit, I added a syntax subsection to the documentation for this template. It can be seen in the template’s notes as a subsection of the usage section. I am not sure about the use of the word policy in the syntax structure. If anyone has a better suggestion I am open to it. Alternatively, you can edit it directly here. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda rewrote the whole thing. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The re-write is definitely an improvement! — Spike Toronto 08:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes re: Substitution[edit]

Resolved

– Just an FYI.

With this edit, I added a notes section to the documentation for this template. It reminds users that this template is not to be substituted using subst. Thanks — Spike Toronto 09:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul[edit]

Resolved

– Discussion centralized at Template talk:Citation needed#Merge from Template:Reference necessary and Wikipedia talk:MOS#An issue returns: Underlining/highlighting as a cleanup signal.

I've recently overhauled this, to a pretty serious extent. Not to be a big meanie or anything, but to keep it from being TfDd again, and to make it as mergeable as possible, since it really doesn't need to be a little-known alternative template, but part of our basic citation cleanup routines. I think that the most productive eventuality is to merge the "wrapper" function of this template into {{Citation needed}} and just redirect this there. Then any use of {{cn}} or {{fact}} or even {{refnec}} to borrow fr.wiki's shortcut will be usable both as a container to surround questionable text and as a typical post-text tag, even in the same paragraph ({{sic}} is flexible in the same way, if anyone wants to see that in action). Unless I get shot down in flames on this idea for some reason, I plan to install the needed code to make this happen, in most if not all such templates, like {{dubious}}, {{weasel-inline}}, etc., since being able to precisely ID the problem material is obviously a boon to having the problem be resolved faster and with less confusion. All that said, the merge discussion is at Template talk:Citation needed (merge discussions usually take place at the merge-to target not the merge-from source). Just wanted to let people know that the discussion has been opened there, and what the the purpose of my recent edits has been. I've also tried to make my edit summaries, for non-trivial tweaks and futzing, be as clear as possible in both the template itself and the /doc subpage. If anyone thinks I'm nuts, please drop me a line and I'll try to better explain the rationale for whatever seems questionable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish is to be commended for all the work he has done to get this template to work properly! Moreover, I think that his merge suggestion is a great one. The multiple-sentence wrapper function should have been added to {{Citation needed}} at the very start instead of being set up in a separate template with the very long name of {{Reference necessary}}.
However, to have the wrapper function, but without the subtle underlining, is not really to have the wrapper function at all. Thus, I think merger is a great idea if and only if it continues to have the practically invisible underlining. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference would be that editors will still benefit from the wrapper function. I believe that a lot of editors will have an overkill problem with a cleanup/dispute template that not only makes itself visible in the middle of prose (inline templates like {{fact}} were a hard sell to begin with, and did not gain immediate consensus to be kept at all) but also changes the text further as some kind of in-article "reader warning". WP:NODISCLAIMERS and WP:SELFREF strongly discourage us from user browbeating. The fact that template was (yes, more blatantly) highlighting the wrapped text was the principal reason this template was sent to TfD. That TfD was so close that I believe many admins would have concluded "delete" rather than "no consensus", and it was only that close probably because this NODISCLAIMER and SELFREF argument wasn't made then. All that said, I'd rather see the wrapping functionality spread to {{fact}} and all the other templates of this sort, at the cost of the underlining, than the functionality just stay here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the wrapper functionality being added to {{fact}} and then {{Reference necessary}} deleted. It is infinitely logical and makes maintenance of inline templates easier since it reduces the number that have to be maintained. (Something tautological about that last phrase!) But, if the wrapper version of {{fact}} does not use the subtle underlining, we all know what will happen in practical, everyday usage: If there are three sentences/phrases that need flagging, then three {{fact}} tags will be added, one after each sentence/phrase, which is practically just as eye-jarring to the reader as the subtle underlining. An editor is a reader until he presses the edit button. He needs to know what needs fixing before he presses it. Removing the subtle underlining is like those invisible statements that use , only serving less purpose. — Spike Toronto 20:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your concern (without entirely agreeing with it; I regularly use  :-) Anyway, I would like to merge the functionality and spread it to other inline templates soon, and just not deal with the style issue (if it is controversial, it will be controversial whether I personally raise any controversy, right?). One actual issue, if the underlining is to be kept as this is propagated to other inline templates, is that the style stuff should all be done as a CSS class, and one with a name that isn't template-specific. That's take an edit to the site-wide css file. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand that last bit: You do not want the style to be

span class="referencenecessary"

as that is template specific and you want these templates to be more universal and thus easier to maintain across the board. I agree that we should merge first and deal with style later. But, is there not some rule that says that a merger discussion should run for x days before determining consensus, akin to XfDs? You only posted your merger proposition 16 hours ago. Would it be to soon to implement it? What is the recommended timeframe for a merger discussion? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have what I take to be your wholehearted agreement, at my talk page, to consolidate this discussion on one place, so I'm marking this one "resolved" with a pointer to the merge discussion. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date broken[edit]

The date parameter doesn't work. {{Cfact |1=For example, I tagged this sentence. |date=March 2010}}. The wikicode for the previous sentence was {{Cfact |1=For example, I tagged this sentence. |date=March 2010}}

…which is particularly worrysome if bots add the date parameter and bork article text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note[edit]

38.422 km — length of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, as of June 2006, the longest bridge in the world

This was enclosed in ref. nec. - really {{CN}} is fine, because it is apparent that both (or all three depending how you count) facts need citing - the length, and that it is the longest bridge (and the date). Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Colour usage[edit]

I just heard about this. The point of difference that made this template worthwhile was changing the colour of the text. This is a fascinating idea to try and encourage readers to participate. if there is no colour change, then we have a template that differs very little from ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[citation needed]}. Can we try with a pale beige, pale cream or something? Alternately, if someone made one for copyediting or NPOV and a pale pink that would be fantastic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the whole point of this template is to enable editors to see unambiguously which bit needs a reference. See the statement at the bottom of the deletion discussion. -- Smjg (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]