Template talk:Citation needed

Active discussions
WikiProject Inline Templates
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.
WikiProject Reliability
This template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

"Template:CM" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:CM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. InvalidOS (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 20Edit

to ad inline words to improve the Voortrekker monument article on Wikipedia where it says citation is needed and I will use correct spelled words thank you Charl leonard (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Citation needed}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. DonIago (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} vs {{fact}} vs. {{dubious}} ?Edit

We have a large number of synonyms which redirect here.

Should {{fact}} point here? Or should it point to {{dubious}}?

The function of {{citation needed}} is fairly obvious. It's for ostensibly true statements, which are not challenged in their truth, but do need sourcing per WP:V. {{disputed inline}} is for those which are challenged, to the point that a Talk: discussion is required (it's not specifically clear if this question relates to the statement or the citation. {{dubious}} is a milder form of this (and per the current wording, only if sourced) where the truth of the citation is doubted specifically, rather than the truth of the statement.

{{fact}} is unusable. Its purpose is unclear, it's 'bot-replaced to {{citation needed}} anyway. At present it seems more like a trap for the unwary than anything useful. We would be better without it. As it is, editors might fact-tag something, because the unsourced content is wrong, and that is then converted to a request for citation of the error. Which all too often simply encourages a sloppy Googling for that same incorrect fact, and we then use citogenesis or an equally dubious process to fix the error in place irrevocably. Many of these errors are subtle: it's easy to find bad sources which support them.

So, what should we do with {{fact}}? How should inline issues, particularly for the questioned truth of unsourced content, be noted? Must these be escalated (and always escalated) to {{disputed inline}} and the need for a Talk: post?

Or should we reinstate {{fact}} to the same level as {{citation needed}}? With separate resultant categorization, and without the 'bot replacement to {{citation needed}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Citation needed" page.