Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Farrah fawcet

70.124.68.74 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC) farah Fawcett is from corpus Christi tx not Austin tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.68.74 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013‎

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please change Tamil - c. 200 BC: cave inscriptions and potsherds in Tamil Nadu to Tamil. 1700 BC: inscriptions on stones because the reference cites a book published in 1992 whereas the these are recent findings. [1] [2] [3] Jeraldramaclus (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2013 (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. -- --Chewings72 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting instructions

Please see here for a discussion on the talkpage of {{Dubious}} that discusses a discrepancy in the instructions on the documentation here and there. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

tag cited in a professor's book

The Citation Needed tag made it into media along with tagged text. Pinker, Steven, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined (N.Y.: Viking, hardback [3d printing?] 2011 (ISBN 978-0-670-02295-3)), p. 113 (author prof. psychology, Harvard Univ., per dust jkt., rear flap). Nick Levinson (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in Wikipedia

In Wikipedia, under "Leo Mazzone", it cites the town of Luke in location to a river , then says he "grew up there". Yet, in Wikipedia under "Westernport MD", ...residents, it states that Leo lived his entire childhood there [being Westernport]. The latter is correct, being that of Westernport. Leo and his family lived on Main Street. I was their paperboy, delivering the Cumberland Times. ---- toolman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolmanbruce (talk • contribs) 07:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Leo Mazzone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

USA.

70.170.98.16 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 February 2014

Here is a video clip that cites a Harvard researcher on the ways a placebo can be effective. It should go in the paragraph with the "Citation needed" note, between current note 6 and note 7. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-powerful-placebo-effect-works/ 108.198.68.218 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Hi, 108.198.68.218. You've placed this message in the wrong spot. Please put it on the talk page of whatever article you were reading. See Help:Using talk pages for more details. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've forwarded your message to Talk:Placebo#Possible_video_source_for_.22citation_needed.22_tag, which is the article to which I guess you were refering. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Data

The article says "This template is used on 280,000+ pages", while the page "Wikipedia:Database reports/Templates transcluded on the most pages", has the count of tranclusions of "{{Citation needed}}" at 276,224; some 3,500 out. Requesting the change of this number to "270,000+".

MS10EL (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It was only 1.367% out - it's not a crucial figure. I would have let it get to at least 5% out - maybe even 10% - before bothering; but the page Template:Citation needed/doc is editable by any WP:AUTOCONFIRMED user. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Placement

All examples in the documentation show that this tag should be placed after punctuation. I find this natural since we would like this tag eventually to be replaced by a ref tag and references follow WP:REFPUNCT. Any opinions whether this should become more clear in the documentation and/or the Manual of Style? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is not the place to discuss the Manual of Style. Also, it is not true that "references follow punctuation"; only <ref> tags do, and these follow punctuation regardless whether they are references or some other form of footnote. Harvard-style parenthetical references do not follow punctuation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Since {{cn}} creates a supercripted display of some length, similar to a <ref> tag, it seems to me that a similar placement would be normal, but since CN tags are supposed to be temporary in any case (either the fact should be cited or removed after a reasonable time) I don't see that minute precision in the placement of the tag matters so very much. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Since this issue is related to more templates than just {{citation needed}}, I suggest that further conversation be had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have responded at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates#Does MOS state inline templates after punctuation?.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• QuestionIs there any reason why this matters enough to be worth discussing one way or another. ? DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Change to tooltip text

As per this conversation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates, I intend to add the text "tagged since " to the date string of the tooltip. Barring no strong objections, I will make the change here in a day or two. The intention is to ultimately make the change for all the inline templates. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Change to displayed text

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Make "Citation Needed" tags less prominent and discuss there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014

Samuel Edison and family relocated from Ohio in 1854 and rented a ex-officers home, that was located on the property of the Fort Gratiot. In 1979 the Oakland University, Rochester, Mich. discovered 42 pieces of typeset in the basement, that verifies that Thomas Alva Edison printed the newspaper that he sold - on the daily train ride - to Detroit. Today this is the very same paper as the current newspaper called the Port Huron Times Herald. 72.201.106.129 (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: The request was made on a completely unrelated page, so using {{subst:EP|mis}} would have been more suitable than {{subst:ESp|rs}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (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. Per suggestion of Rose. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

39.54.226.143 (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Paracha Tribe is Also Living In Mansehra Village Banda Piran and has strong Political Background...Sajjad Ahmad Paracha A sTrong Candidate HAs Won Alot of TImes Elections From MAnsehra and Has remained NAzim UC Anayatabad....

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

This Card game was actually thought and made up by my father Ronald Dexter. I have the instructions and game submission he sent into Milton Bradley company in 1965. I know everyone says they made it up. I have all the paperwork and what he typed and letters back from Milton Bradley. 67.185.206.12 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2014 (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. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - June 23, 2014

I noticed small typographical errors with the citation needed template article. These errors more than likely (I'm even comfortable saying definitely, 100%) contribute to poor practices due to readers passing on the mistakes the page itself contains and promotes.

The talk page here seems to be the place to request temporary access to edit the article and that's what I'm here for. So... how long does this process usually take? Thanks. Marc Bago (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Temporary permissions to edit will not be given. If you want changes made, mention them specifically and someone will make them for you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Marc Bago: Following on from User talk:Redrose64#Permission to edit, we don't "temporarily enable editing"; what we do is ask you to either describe exactly what the problem is, or to put your proposed new version into the template's sandbox - more at WP:TESTCASES. Once you have done that, and it is demonstrated to be working, and has consensus to go live, please add {{edit protected}} at the top of this section; more at WP:PER. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and Redrose64: Instead of just a "no", is anyone willing to explain why not? Here are two issues. I would even go as far as to say they are pretty big issues. Users dashing around Wikipedia, I have it on good authority, simply will grab the code and repurpose it while obeying the "rules" (they interpret rules by viewing the code) which is ultimately incorrect. Long story short, it makes no sense to have code examples with leading capitals when leading capitals are not to be used. It'd be nice if there was an ounce of trust on this website so I wouldn't have to make a request, hunt someone down, get denied, have to use photo software, then type all this stuff. You do see how this is wasting everyone's time when you get down to it, no? Anyway, I hope these changes are quickly made. It only makes sense. There is no arguing that. Marc Bago (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We have procedures that were agreed by the community some years ago, and the ones applicable in this case are mostly at WP:PROT and WP:PER. Policies and guidelines apart, there is no technical means for temporarily lifting protection; and there is also no means for lifting protection for one person whilst leaving it in place for others. If you want the protection to be permanently reduced for all editors, please file a request at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Marc Bago: apparently there is a communication issue here. You are supposed to implement the changes you propose in Template:Citation needed/sandbox, which will show the impact of your changes at Template:Citation needed/testcases.

That said, your issues are with documentation subpage, which is world-editable, so you can fix them right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Czarkoff: Haha, goodness gracious. You win for picking up on that. Alrighty. Situation normal. Thanks all. Over. Marc Bago (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Marc Bago: FWIW you misinterpreted the comment about lower case. It was was supposed to mean that parameter name starts with lower case "r", not upper case "R". See edit summary of the edit that introduced the change. It is completely logical, given that tooltip is proper sentence and should be capitalized as such. I reverted your edit and removed the misleading note. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use several {{CN}} templates side-by-side?

It is terrible for the page aesthetics to have this many {{CN}} templates in a row in my opinion at this page. It also messes up the page formatting. This is kind of like a decision "Is the article for the editor or for the reader". If I was just some reader, I would be uncertain about reading that list. So, what I am saying is, should there be restrictions when it comes to having multiple {{CN}} templates in a row? Dustin (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so much of an issue if each tag literally only used the letters "CN" rather than spelling out "citation needed" each time. Dustin (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In most cases it is pointy. There is |reason= parameter, which allows specifying all the problems. On the other hand, littering article with {{citation needed}} is handy during Good article review process. Can you show an example? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a link in my earlier comment pointing to List of named tropical cyclones, but maybe you didn't see it? I hope that helps. Dustin (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I count seven on the Georgette row. Every one of those is the same: {{cn|date=April 2014}} Without a |reason= parameter, there is no way of knowing what these relate to, and six may be removed as redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The way that the CN Templates are used on that list does not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point - it just makes life easier when trying to source the list up. They are used so that on a glance that someone can see that the row needs additional sources and can hopefully get them. I could put them around the year usage themselves but i think that would be worse. This is not a redundant way of doing it. Also Dustin makes the point that "if he was just some reader, I would be uncertain about reading that list" which i would be reply to by pointing out that the lack of references would put me off reading it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the reason was that each {{CN}} template was for one of the storms with that name. The problem is that it is bad for the reader, and messes with the page's formatting. If there was a way to make a {{CN}} template take up less space, this wouldn't be so much of an issue at least. Dustin (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If I was just some random reader, I probably wouldn't care to look for sources for each individual storm anyway. I would probably just be irritated by the ugly formatting. Dustin (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited List of named tropical cyclones, but in my opinion, the juxtaposition of even two consecutive templates is confusing, and the use of more than two side by side is downright amateurish. Whoever came up with that idea may be well intentioned, but you're making Wikipedia look foolish. JohnValeron (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it isnt amateurish or confusing, as i have explained above they are used in that way for several reasons and makes the editors life a lot easier when trying to determine where a reference needs to go in that very large list. Just because it may make Wikipedia foolish is not a reason for not doing something imo especially when the article itself may look foolish if it doesn't contain any references to names that are used that maybe offensive in one culture.Jason Rees (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jason, without questioning your good faith, I suspect that in this instance you're letting pride of authorship get in the way of sound editorial judgment. JohnValeron (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reader should come before the editor in terms of view. Why not just use one template for each name, but use the "reason=" parameter and list the years after? Dustin (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jason Rees, the article only looks worse when you spam {{CN}} templates. {{CN}} templates don't replace sources, so it is not better when you load the article full of tags. Dustin (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Normally the {{cn}} is placed against the text that lacks a source. I appreciate that in a table like this (where a column is set aside for the refs) that it is desirable to place the {{cn}} in the refs column, but it then becomes even more important that it be clear to the editor just which fact needs a reference. This is why we provided the |reason= parameter. When used, it shows as a tooltip when you hover the mouse over the words "citation needed" Try it here: Otherwise both reader and editor are left guessing. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In this instance i seriously doubt that the reader and editors are left guessing that the years need sourcing. As for the reason parameter i wasnt aware of it, but i strongly suspect that WP:Accessibility may not like the tooltip idea.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

How does this look? Dustin (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, that is a big improvement. If you could do that for the rest of the article, it would look vastly more professional. JohnValeron (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I could do it, although it would probably take a few days. I would have to check every source that was already present in an attempt to find out what each {{CN}} was referring to. It does look better, though. Dustin (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You'd be doing a service to Wikipedia readers and editors alike. Not only does your approach look better, it facilitates future editing by specifying what citations are needed and where. JohnValeron (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting error with this revision. I think this is the way to go. Dustin (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, the "Gloria" line is awesome. Not only does it look more professional, it focuses on what citations are needed. And whenever one is added for a given year, the editor merely has to delete said year from the Reason parameter and it's right up to date. Thanks for your work on this. JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@JohnValeron: Oh, it's not a problem. It's worth it. I've already finished combining {{CN}} templates on the A and B sections. Next comes what is apparently one of the worst sections of all, the G section. Dustin (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Jason Rees, the current situation is terrible. I have hardly a clue what each {{CN}} tag is referring to, and you can only find out if you spend a long time looking through every source that is there for that name. This is unnacceptable Dustin (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jason, if citations themselves would be attached to years, CNs won't be needed. It would be easy to see which references are missing. Or at least setting |reason=year1, year2, year3 would be less disturbing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have finished modifying the article to meet the new format. So I believe I am right in saying the best way to go about situations where there are multiple side-by-side {{CN}} templates is to resort to the |reason= parameter. It took a long time, but the change was definitely worth it in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dustin, after saying "it would probably take a few days," you finished in less than four hours. Kudos! It's a tremendous improvement. Thanks again for your contributions. JohnValeron (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Well... it was an overestimate. It probably would have taken that long (or at least longer) if I wasn't making use of WP:Navigation popups! It's a great tool. Dustin (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The page has a template at top of the page

The citation needed template is displayed at the top of the Template:Citation needed page, under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It doesn't need to be there.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: At the top of which page? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That's normal: most template pages have a demonstration of the template itself. You'll find that many others such as Template:Dubious, Template:Refimprove, Template:Template for discussion and Template:Db-g1 do this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2014

Area 2945 Sq.Kms. Population - 1998 1087571 persons Male 568574 (52.28 %) Female 518997 (47.72 %) Sex Ratio (males per 100 females) 109.6 Populaltion Density 369.3 per Sq. Km Urban Population 192404 (17.69 %) Rural Population 895167 (82.31 %) Average Household Size 5.8 Literacy Ratio (10 +) 39.1 % Male 24.27 % Female 22.60 % Population - 1981 829051 persons Average Annual Growth Rate (1981 - 98) 1.61 % Total Housing Units 187988 Pacca Housing Units 40017 (21.29 %) Housing Units having Electricity 130311 (69.32 %) Housing Units having Piped Water 30257 (16.09 %) Housing Units using Gas for Cooking 16682 (8.87 %) Administrative Units Talukas 04 Union Councils 51 Mauzas 231 Municipal Committee 01 Town Committees 08 NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DISTRICT AT A GLANCE Changez2424 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Citation needed}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Changez2424, edit requests belong on the talk page of the article you would like to change. The above information have nothing to do with this template so this belongs somewhere else. Also when asking for edit to be made, you need to specify what the article currently says and what you believe it should say along with reliable sources that verify your proposed changes. GB fan 12:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

Kevingreat (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2014 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

113.210.136.1 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2014 (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. GoingBatty (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

keling is not tamil or telugu 113.210.136.1 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (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. GoingBatty (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Add class to instances using first unnamed parameter

Currently this template places all invokations of {{citation needed}} with first unnamed parameter (eg. {{citation needed|foo}}) in dedicated tracking category Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. I periodically raid this category fixing such cases (mostly these are misapplication of "date" and "reason" parameters), but finding them in the page is unnecessarily difficult without any visual clue. Inplementation in sandbox adds "template-fact-with-deprecated-parameters" to invokations of this template with non-empty first unnamed parameter. As this class is undefined in site CSS, the difference between production and sandbox version is not user-visible (as demonstrated in testcases page), allowing interested editors to define this class in their personal CSS. I believe that this change is not contraversial, so I ask to implement it in this template. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

oppose (this method) - If {{{1}}} (or any unnamed parameter) is not supported, the template should emit a very visible notice to the user putting it in, rather than quietly accept it. Shouldn't have to put all the burden on someone else to have to fix by relying on a maintenance category and CSS. Numbered parameters aren't deprecated, they are just wrong usage. Netoholic @ 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be so wonderful if you were right. Still, only in 2012 |reason= was made a real parameter. Before that doccumentation suggested using "dummy" parameter for providing a hidden comment, and "reason" was only given as example.

So far my plan was to introduce a big red {{error|Comment "{{{1}}}" is misplaced, use reason= instead}} or something like this once I end cleaning up this category, and this change would be very helpful in doing so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No, don't make a change to a heavily used template on 270k pages just to help with clearing up the last 30 or so that flag as errors. In the time you took writing these changes to the sandbox and commenting here, you'd have been done. I'll volunteer to assist later today and finish clearing that category. Work in the sandbox on the version that'll be used after the legacy ones are cleared. My suggestion would be to implement a safesubst mechanism to always insert a date= field even if the user forgets (to reduce the need for bots to watch over this) and to remove any unnamed parameters upon insertion. -- Netoholic @ 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that someone cleaned up this template's usage in June – I did not stumble upon older invocations. I recall my request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The template already uses Module:Unsubst, which automatically adds a date if the template is substituted. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to automatically add a date if the template is transcluded. However, we could recommend that the template always be substituted, and therefore a date parameter would always be added. And we could write a bot that substituted the template if it didn't have a date parameter. But that's not really much better than just getting a bot to add date parameters, and it would mean editors having to get their head around what Module:Unsubst does. So, all things considered, I'd say we're probably better off with the status quo. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 20:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Display error message if first unnamed parameter is not empty

Now that Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters is cleaned, I suggest to make this template output error message if first unnamed parameter is non-empty. Implementation of this suggestion is demonstrated on testcases page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That error message as written isn't very informative. Why not simply remove the unnamed parameter from the template completely? Why bother outputting an error or tracking it? I don't think its much of a concern or monitoring via maintenance categories. We don't generally monitor other templates that might have spurious unnamed parameters. Maybe when someone figures out a good way to automatically insert the date= (to avoid bot work), then the unnamed parameters can be looked at again (by removing unnamed parameters from the article at the same time it inserts the date=). -- Netoholic @ 02:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it was widely used instead of |reason=. Please also see this TfD for a reason this parameter started being tracked. Please also see this archived discussion where my plan of tracking this parameter and placing an error once category is clean saw implementation of phase 1.

P.S.: of course you are welcome to propose better wording. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I still have to ask, "so what?". If this usage is so common, then why not fully support it, maybe by adding 1st unnamed to the default reason= line. Or just ignore it and let people use it as a pseudo hidden comment. --Netoholic @ 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

See, among instances I fixed about a half was misplaced date ("{{citation needed|August 2014}}", "{{citation needed|date-August 2014}}", etc), about 40% was misplaced "reason" and remaining 10% were parts of the sentence wrapped in this template as if it was {{citation needed span}}. (I am not sure about exact percentage.) That is: about 50% of invocations needed fixing. Why don't we prevent this with big red error message or at least track and fix? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be either to fully embrace the use if the unnamed parameter by integrating it in, or just ignore and leave the bots to fix the mandatory field (date) when someone leaves it out. Perhaps the bot can instead directly inform the editors that use it wrong. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically, "I don't care, and screw all who does"? Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange usage of comma in date parameter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T23054

Looking over the strange creation of Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2,014, if you look at the version before and this edit, this edit, this edit and this edit shows that a mysterious comma appear if the date parameter is set to February 2014 (becoming February 2,014). In contrast, this edit worked perfectly fine so I don't know what causing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox settlement}} formats numbers in some of its fields, and this applies to dates embedded in maintenance categories and such. You should put the {{citation needed}} tags in the associated "footnote" parameters, such as |population_footnotes=. Anomie⚔ 12:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Yes; I'm sure that I have explained this before - the parameters |population_total= and similar are intended for purely numeric values, no text and definitely no templates. This is because they are used in calculations, among other things. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Should this go into the Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template section? Or is this such a weird error that doesn't happen and I'm just being out there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not specific to {{Citation needed}} but will happen when any template that emits a dated category is placed in an infobox parameter which is expecting to format a numeric value by using commas to separate thousands. Not all infoboxes do this, and of those that do, not every parameter will format numbers with commas. The documentation for the infobox is the place for warnings about valid and invalid parameter values, also for advice on the proper placement of both <ref>...</ref> and {{cn}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Treat first unnamed parameter...

...as if a |date=, i.e. {{cn|October 2014}} would be the same as {{cn|date=October 2014}}...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been rejected before; one reason would be that it would make the template inconsistent with all the other cleanup templates which use an explicit |date= parameter. There is at least one bot going around fixing such usage. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Understood. Thanks for pointing out. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 October 2014

On this page, could the following text:

[[Category:Protected redirects]]

...please be replaced with the following text:

{{R fully protected}}

...so that the redirect is is put into the category via a tranclusion in an Rcat template rather than a category transclusion? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

2. AFM 31-201 paragraph 2.5.5. The bombing of Khobar Towers prompted then Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sheila Widnall to state, ―…our review of the facts and circumstances surrounding it (the bombing) has drastically altered the way the Air Force thinks about, prepares for and defends threats to the safety of our forces.‖ In light of that changed environment, the Air Force directed actions to ensure Force Protection changes were instituted to meet those threats. 24.250.135.140 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

24.250.135.140 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

References

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 February 2015

Movie: 1) Land of The Minotaur Caracter of Beth: the name of the actress playing Beth is Vanna Revelli (Gelsomina)- 2) Movie Doubious Agent (Simmoreia Ston Mesogeio) the name of 'girl' is Vanna Revelli (Gelsomina) Can you please amend the cast names on these movies with the right spelling, thank you. 109.53.203.104 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Citation needed}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)