Template talk:Fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Fact is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

This template was nominated for deletion on July 1 2006. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn on procedural technicality (and discussion was overwhelmingly in favor of keep)

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Kerry Howley. "Artifact: The World Needs Citations", Reason Magazine, March 2008. (details)

{{inline}}

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.

Archives (Index)

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

About archives • Edit this box

[edit] Unlinked or linked brackets?

When fact is compared with other minor "touch" templates, I can see that the fact template is the only one having the "[" and "]" brackets also having a "link", turning out as blue, and other similar templates have brackets without a link, and are black.

I'm not requesting an edit for this template yet, since I think this would need a concensus. Would it be better to "link" the brackets from other similar templates too, or should the brackets be unlinked from this template? Either way, the style of these templates would improve the cosmetic looks these templates have.

I've altered the code of this template to show brackets as black:

<includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements since {{{date}}}]]|[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}[[Category:All articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><sup class="noprint Template-Fact">[[[Wikipedia:Citing sources|<span title="This claim needs references to reliable sources {{#if:{{{date|}}}| since {{{date}}}|}}" style="white-space: nowrap;">''citation needed''</span>]]]</sup>

Which would show up as:

^{[citation needed]}

Unlike as:

^{[citation needed]}

Compared to the other inline tags, it's like a perfect look. Comments? ~Iceshark7 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be consistent. Looks good. Rich Farmbrough, 09:10 24 September 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Fix-inline

Resolved. Now using {{fix}} as intended.

I was bold and converted this template to call Template:Fix-inline. Pretty much all other inline templates of this type have been using that format for weeks now without issue (see [1]). Primary purpose is to allow standardization of how these templates are displayed, formatted, called, et cetera.

As a 'side effect' this returns the outer brackets to unlinked black as requested immediately above, in at least two other comments further up this page, and by the consensus in the discussion on the same topic at the Wikiproject page. I kept the 'Template-Fact' class since there are apparently some javascripts and/or other options which key off it, but all the other templates of this sort except NCite (which is a near copy of Fact and has the same Template-Fact class) use an 'Inline-Template' class.

If there's some reason not to include this template in with the others for consistency we can revert, but overall I think it will be better for everyone if we can make changes to just one template when there are decisions to adjust the formatting of these inline notices. --CBD 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Fix-inline}} is just a component of {{fix}}, and isn't intended to be used standalone. I note that the template now properlly uses {{fix}}, so tagging this topic as resolved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage / placing

I wonder if anything speaks against using the template included in <ref>{{fact}}</ref> tags. It seems to me that it would still work to draw attention to a need for a citation, but would simultaneously work as a reference placeholder which needs to be filled. I got the idea because I believe that References sections are still widely underappreciated as individual and very important sections. There are still far too many articles with unformatted in-line external links, many ref sections are a gigantic mess. — [ aldebaer⁠] 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This would imply to all but to the top 0.1% of super-dilligent users that the alleged fact in question has actually been sourced; only hardcore editors who specialize in verification, and very serious end users who are checking facts (e.g. because they are relying upon the article for a news paper story or a university paper) actually look at the references being cited to see if they are a) even there, and b) are reliable. I.e., hardly anyone would notice that any such {{fact}} tags hidden inside bogus reference citations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Why is this template called "fact"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Smjg 01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why so many redirects?

(They all redirect to template:fact)

Can't we delete some? What if everyone created there own redirect? Chaos! I like the {{wtf}} one. -Rocket000 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? Some people are just used to grabbing a different name (after all, the template does say "citation needed", which makes stuff like {{citation needed}} and {{cn}} perfectly logical). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a problem. If you have heard that there is a problem when there are too many templates, it's when they are nested, not when there are a bunch of redirects. 1of3 02:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a problem but I would like to propose to get rid of some of the redirecting templates, especially {{Citeneeeded}} (very gooooode English), {{Sourceme}} (pardon me??), {{Citationneeded}} (I regard it reasonable to to retain the good old custom of spacing). Wkr, --Paunaro (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Right spirt, but missing the point. The fact that there are a lot of redirects is not an issue at all, and deleting them without running massive AWB or bot cleanup sessions would break a lot of things. The problem is that {{fact}} is advertising all of these redirects. That entire section should just be deleted, with the sole exception of {{cn}} and {{citation needed}}. If anyone wants to know what all the redirects are, that is what "What links here" is for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need {{editprotected}} to make the edit; you can just edit the documentation page. I'll leave it to consensus here to decide whether or not that's a good idea. --ais523 13:04, 29 November 2007 (U T C)

Duh. Sometimes I forget which templates are /doc'd and which aren't. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations from Jimbo

Kim van der Linde wrote:

That would amount to deleting around 90% of the article as unsourced........

Jimbo Wales wrote:

Go for it!

--Jimbo Source

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

If you want to go the bad-ass evil & sneaky route, simply tag all of the unsourced items with {{fact}} (an edit which, granted, would take some time), let them be for a week and then summarily remove them. If it is as bad as you say (which I don't doubt, after a quick look at it), raze and rebuild from the ground up is a very sensible option.

Jimbo Wales wrote:

In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

--Jimbo Source

Currently, there are some quotations from Jimbo on this talk page. His opinions are interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate to place one user's opinion in a place separate from the opinions of other users, as if his opinion were more important. I think Jimbo's opinions should be placed under a section on this page, or an essay should be created for them, so they don't get archived. A.Z. 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the comments to this section. A.Z. 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on spacing

Currently, if this template is used at the end of a paragraph, it eats the space separating the paragraph from the following paragraph. E.g.,

A paragraph.{{fact|date=October 2007}}

Another paragraph.

is displayed as:

A paragraph.[citation needed]Another paragraph.

Is someone able to fix this? —GrantNeufeld 14:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, we had that fixed months ago by placing the categories first, before the displayed text. What happened? Gimmetrow 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make the link point to Wikipedia:Citation needed

Considering the thousands of transclusions of this template, the link on the "citation needed" text could go somewhere a bit more targeted, by explaining everything the clicker might want to know. To that end, I've created Wikipedia:Citation needed. Please improve that page as necessary, and if consensus agrees, update the template to link there rather than directly to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Stevage 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately leaving this open for more discussion, and to make sure that the change is done correctly first time. There are 89820 pages that use this template (making it 49th in Special:Mostlinkedtemplates), and the servers will have to reparse them all if the template is changed; that's not a reason not to change the template, but it is a reason not to change it more than about once a week at the maximum (and preferably longer), so it's important to get any change right first time. Also, are there any other changes to this template that people have been thinking about which could be done at the same time? --ais523 11:58, 6 November 2007 (U T C)

That's ok - I gave it a week and no one replied. One advantage of updating the link to a new page is that then we can redirect that page if we ever want to, without updating the template. I don't know of any other changes. Stevage 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. It kept the servers busy for about 15 seconds just to schedule the updates to articles that this will take. The change to links on existing articles will not take place immediately, but rather when the servers get round to it, which will usually be within a few hours but may take up to a week depending on whether they're busy with something more important. --ais523 09:27, 8 November 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Odd category

On the article about West Germany, it appears that a call to {{fact}} is causing the article to be included in Category:Articles with unsourced statements since September 2,007. The template is called in the article as {{Fact|date=September 2007}}. I don't see a reason for the extra comma within the template code, and it's apparent that there isn't a comma in the template call either. Slambo (Speak) 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the cause is the formatnum on stat_pop1 in the infobox code. You can get the same thing putting a fact tag in a stat_area field. Gimmetrow 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag spam issue

Occasionally I had run into the so-called "citation tag spam" issue, where users - acting in good or bad faith - will go over an article and tag every paragraph, sentence, or sometimes even parts of sentences with this template. With dozens of such templates, the articles are quite uglified. Now, I agree that sometimes it is helpful - for example, if the article is in review and editors have asked which controversial facts need inline citations. Sometimes it can be too much, for example in articles were a more general {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} is needed. Do we have something discussing how not to abuse this template? An essay, perhaps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this has been discussed before. See /Archive 4#Overuse in a single article and /Archive 4#Not overrused. Note that, until just now, the archive page was a mixed-case-duplicate-name and thus essentially lost. I've just now move it to /Archive 4 so it can be found again. • I do think this kind of overuse, when {{unreferenced}} or some other ambox would be better, is suboptimal. I don't think we need Yet Another essay, just a mention in this template's doc page. I'll see what I can come up with. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The people who add excessive tags do so in good faith, but unfortunately they often lack the perspective to see that the tags are excessive. For example, they may be tagging an article on a subject with which they are completely unfamiliar. One relevant essay is WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this on occasion in a content dispute when it seems the only way to get through to another party who feels something is properly cited is to tag each and every claim made which is felt requires citation. It might be better in these cases to tag the section and make a complete list on the talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that a much better technique, if a full list is needed. It's more conducive to discussion than fact tags on the article, which have a black/white nature. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the template documentation completely, in the hopes of clearing up this and other confusions. Except in a few cases, I tried to be neutral and descriptive, reflecting what editors are doing, rather than telling people what to do. Hopefully others will agree and see this as an improvement. :) Comments, commendations, condemnations? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very nice - it explains what's going on and how to use the template, and I think it should be clear to the intended audience. I copyedited it a little this morning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good improvements, too. Mentioning and linking "inline citation" in the lead-in is an especially good idea. • One subtle but important thing I changed from your edit: I changed the phrase "that do not have an inline citation" to "are incomplete without an inline citation". The former could be read as implying that all material requires an inline citation. As far as I have been able to determine, it is an open question as to exactly what level of inline citation is appropriate on Wikipedia. Some articles footnote practically every sentence; others rely on a general "Sources" section at the end. I suspect the best answer is "it depends on the article", but I'm not sure even that sentiment has consensus. Unless there's some clear evidence of consensus in either direction, I think we should avoid saying anything that implies when citations are required. We can just link to the relevant guidelines, and let the question be decided there. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Create category for articles with incorrect date parameters

After going through Special:Wantedcategories, I noticed that a number of them were suggested as a result of people incorrectly using the date parameter. I think it would be a good idea to create a category for these articles. It wouldn't be too hard to implement if using the ifexist parser function, and would make it easier to fix them. Harryboyles 05:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I didn't get a response, I decided to add the code myself. It first checks to see whether the date parameter has been specified. If so, it then checks to see whether the dated category exists. If not, the articles is added to Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. Harryboyles 18:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fr:Modèle:Référence_nécessaire

What do people think of stealing the sexy design of the french {{référence nécessaire}} and using it here? It allows a chunk of text to be highlighted in relation to the citation-needed tag, but could be used without an argument and would display like ours does. Anyone? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the talk page, you can explain in detail which words you are concerned about, why you are concerned, other ideas you have, and so on. This is far superior to just highlighting some words in an article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just came here to ask the same thing. For backwards compatability we would need to ensure existing variable-free transclusions of this template behave exactly as before. However, if we made unnamed variable 1 carry the unreferenced text that would probably work. Alternately, to avoid confusion we could make a new template (though that would likely slow uptake). —dgies^t_c 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad formatting

This template causes horizontal scrollbars on so many pages it's ridiculous. See, for example, The Statue of Liberty in popular culture#In television and film. Can something can be done about it? I'm no expert in HTML but surely this is bad form? --— Hugh 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. You may need to take a screenshot to show others what you see. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot. --— Hugh 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. I managed to duplicate that in my version of firefox as well. I know the cause - the whitespace in the fact tag is set to nowrap - but not the reason. It looks like a rendering issue to me, rather than an HTML issue. The fact that the monobook skin uses the entire width of the browser window doesn't help. Anyway, I don't see any good fix to this right away. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the name "Fact"

I do not think that "Fact" is the best name for this template. When I first ran across it, I thought it meant the item had been proven fact, when what it really means is that the factuality of the statement requires citation as it is dubious or not common knowledge. -- Jolliette Alice Bessette, -- 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As the documentation page states, it may be easier if you visualise a question mark after the fact tag, i.e. {{fact?}}. As for renaming the template, it's pretty unlikely. The template is transcluded thousands of times in tousands of articles. Many bots and other software assume that the main template is {{fact}}. Not to mention that many editors have the syntax nailed down in their memories, making it much harder to change. If you wish to tag sentences in articles, you can use the aliases {{cn}} and {{Citation needed}}, which might be easier. Harryboyles 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which template option to use

Should {{subst:fact-now}} be recommended on the documentation page as the best choice since it is simpler and more sure than {{fact|date=June 2008}} and will have less edits in the history that {{fact}}? 209.244.43.122 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Version for maps?

Increasingly I have run into situation where a well-referenced article has a completly unreferenced map, with npov/OR issues that arise from that situation. While we can tag map captions with {{fact}}, it would be better if we had a dedicated template for it - along the line this map does not provide any references or sources. There should be also a more general template to be slapped at the image page itself (often located on Commons). Comments? PS. Example of a large and completely unreferenced map.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for NPOV you can use {{POV-map}}, but for OR I don't know. Please don't do like on Image:Average annual precipitation in China(English).png for example though, someone created a page on wikipedia for an image on the commons, in order to tag it as POV. Jackaranga (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For images lacking source I guess it's just {{Di-no source}} Unsourced images should be deleted. Jackaranga (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that OR is allowed for maps (Wikipedia:OR#Original_images), but they should still be referenced. It would be nice to distinguish POV, missing references, and a missing source as that's potentially three different issues, I'm ok with using {{POV-map}}, {{fact}}, and {{Di-no source}} respectively but wouldn't object to map specific versions. And for maps on commons please tag them on commons, I know for my commons maps I'll often completely miss stuff put on their wikipedia pages. Kmusser (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that these tags are a great idea. However nowadays most maps are uploaded to Commons, so this conversation is a bit on the moot side, unless we get similar/identical tags there. Regards, MapMaster (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why have the categories disappeared?

It seems that articles with this tag no longer display the Category:Articles with unsourced statements as of ... link at the bottom with their other categories. Why is that? Is it a bug or an intentional change? If the former, can someone fix it? If the latter, can we change it back? —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's because the categories have been hidden; see for instace [2].

So, I suppose changing it back is easy enough. Do we want to? Why was it changed in the first place? — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't about other people, but *I* find it helpful to know how old the {{fact}} tags are on articles I keep on my watchlist. I generally like to let them ripen for a quarter-year or so before removing the unsourced claims (unless they're on articles about living people, in which case the unsourced claims get removed immediately). —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Found the relevant discussion. I guess that's where you'll have to argue your case. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, not worth it. Thanks for the link, though! —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record (since it came up here): There is now a user setting "Show hidden categories" (on the "Misc" tab) that any logged in user may select to make these categories display as well. Highly recommended to anyone doing maintenance work. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-wiki reference to this template

Fans of this template may be interested in this article from Reason magazine. 131.7.52.17 (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added article to WP:Press coverage and WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2008. --Silver Edge (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please change the message

{{editprotected}} The content of this template is highly mocked by sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia,^{[citation needed]} and also by what is mentioned in the source above. Please change it. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 07:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Change how and why? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit request declined. Not specific enough, plus a change on a highly used template like this needs more input. Garion96 (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Due by date?

I may have missed it, but the template documentation Date parameter section is missing the actual "due by date" parameter! It seems to me that logic suggests a "parameter" needs both a start date, and an end date. Without the end date, the later extremity of the definition becomes potentially infinite. I think it would be nice to know that the content associated with the {{fact}} can eventually be deleted if no citation had been forthcoming. Naturally the community will need to reach consensus on what that time period may be...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the way I have seen it done is that you wait a reasonable time after requesting a citation, and make a good faith effort to find one yourself in the meantime. User:Pedant (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, what is a "a reasonable time"?

If someone makes a claim, and I can't begin to imagine where the claim came from, no amount of good faith will help ;o)...I could pray for inspiration I guess ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Line wrapping

It seems that this template can cause a line to fail to wrap in certain circumstances. This example emerged in historical revisionism before with line wrap problem for the first line "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative...", after without ^{[citation needed]} and line wapping fixed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Slew

This section left out Seattle Slew as a triple crown winner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.40.85 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "This claim needs references to reliable sources since May 2008"

This is ungrammatical... Is a simple addition to the end of the tag the only way to give the date? Waltham, The Duke of 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey... Why does Orpheus get to receive an answer in twelve minutes and I am still waiting? :-( Waltham, The Duke of 08:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd go with "This claim was tagged as needing references to reliable sources in xxxxx" or "In xxxxxx, this claim was tagged as needing a reference from a reliable source", which is much easier to comprehend and dispenses with an unneccesary plural to-boot. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that grammatical horror is generated by a Bot, not by this template. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can't find it. Where have you seen this problem? --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Das problem is at ze tooltip vich appears ven one hovers over den bracket (not ze link). It cannot have anything to do with a bot, unless you are referring to the one adding dates when the taggers have forgotten to, which sounds irrelevant.

Now, about the solution, it is probably simpler (in the technical sense) to find one that works both with a date and without it; to be honest, I have no idea if completely different messages can appear in each case, so what I said might be the only solution. Although not as American as using the preterite, I'd go with present perfect: "This claim has been tagged as needing references to reliable sources since May 2008". The problem here is the length. We could solve this by removing the "tagged" part, which is absent from the current version anyway, but the following does not work well without the date: "This claim has needed references to reliable sources since May 2008".

The only way to do it is probably to change the addition. A proper sentence would look rather awkward (like "This claim needs references to reliable sources and was tagged in May 2008"), so the only viable solution would be to make it look like a technical note: "This claim needs references to reliable sources (tagged May 2008)". After all, these templates are not supposed to stick for months and years, even if they often do.

Thoughts? Waltham, The Duke of 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Icon

This template is permanently protected, but doesn't have the appropriate padlock icon (see, for example, Template:Failed_verification). Just indulging my inner pedant - if any administrators are feeling bored, they might like to add it :) Orpheus (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done I'm avoiding work. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glitch?

Not sure if this is the same glitch as that reported on 6th May (above), but see the VP --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why does Wikipedia have this template? It seems illogical to me. I see these tags everywhere, and the majority of the time I wonder how the statements they follow are allowed to persist. My instinct is to delete them, but I am afraid of violating some rule. When the rules get in the way of the mission, red flags should go up. If the goal is factual accuracy, then when inaccurate or unverified content is found it should be hastily deleted. What purpose does it serve to leave dubious content, other than to avoid edit wars? That seems to me to be the real purpose of this template.

If this template were done away with, and all additions to the encyclopedia were required to be properly sourced from the moment of addition, the articles would be both more accurate and more concise. As it stands, they seem to have a tendency to become bloated and infested with "citation needed" tags; this decreases both the readability and the trustworthiness of the encyclopedia.

This template facilitates the intentional insertion of patent nonsense by editors who know that policy protects their "contributions" from deletion. For the common reader, a citation tag is probably seen as a mild annoyance rather than the ominous warning that it should be. If they absorb the misinformation in spite of those tags, which at least some (if not most) of them will, then Wikipedia has done them a disservice--one that could have been avoided by simply demanding verifiable content to begin with.

Quality over quantity should be the guiding principle of an encyclopedia. I tend to think the opposite is in effect here. Jdtapaboc (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately many people seem to like their articles littered with little stickers. Occasionally they even do actually appear somewhere just because a citation is needed.

If you see something which you know to be nonsense, remove it on sight. If you see a stale citation tag on a doubtful statement, remove it and add a note to the talk page. Date these tags on sight, so it will be obvious when they are stale. There's no reason for uncited material to remain in an article for days or weeks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-27 14:19 z

They're extremely useful in one context in particular: when improving an article. A lot of editors use the technique of marking all claims that need citing before knocking them all off by citing or removing, on the way to WP:FA etc. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And one should not forget that Wikipedia initially had a much laxer attitude towards citing sources; many articles have invaluable information which is, however, unsourced. That includes several FAs, which have been suffering the FAR axe one by one for a couple of years now. This template is a necessity in a large part justified by a historical accident—you might as well consider it a part of Wikipedia's natural evolution. Waltham, The Duke of 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I see very little indication that the tag is used in that fashion. There, at the very least, needs to be some guidelines on the use of this template, since its practical use is the very opposite of Wikipedia:Be bold, and I think harmful in most cases.--Fangz (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been here a long time, but maybe you've not spent much time at WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, WP:GA, WP:FAR, WP:FARC and WP:FLRC? I agree that with breaches of WP:BLP the template is inappropriate, but compared to the mass of uncited claims that need sourcing, BLP breaches are a tiny minority. Good faith but unsourced claims that are not inaccurate and do not breach BLP should not be removed (and be bold should not be used in these circumstances) and this tag is useful for pointing out that they should be cited. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You've not been here long, and you seem to be under the impression that every claim should have a citation or this stupid tag. That is not the case. Only contentious assertions need fall into that category. Citations are great, but being bold and actually leveraging the benefits of this being a wiki are more important. Gigs (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect fr.w.o interwiki

The French equivalent is "Modèle:Référence nécessaire", not the currently linked "Modèle:Citation nécessaire". The latter is only for the case when a fact's accuracy is not in question but other wikipedians would like to know the source so that they can also look their for additional info/context. --Gronky (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia pages referenced by the press