Template talk:Full citation needed

message: Why does this link to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this, too.  (I am guessing that the section name(s) in "Wikipedia:Citing_sources" had changed.) I think it would be better to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include  (a.k.a. WP:CITEHOW). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  DoctorKubla (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style 

message: Just used this and expected to find the article placed in some maintenance category but there weren't any. Should there be some maintenance categories added to this template so the articles can be tracked and problem dealt with? Keith D (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories missing

message: I am not sure what purpose this serves. We already have  and multiple other templates to request specific citation details. --Chealer (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly  seems the pointless one. Between  and  both of which have clear meaning in my mind, it's not clear what else "citation broken" could flag. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Agree with Some1Redirects4You. This template serves a specific semantic purpose while, if anything, you have it backwards regarding necessity. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose 

message: In some cases people are so lazy with the citations that they just drop very incomplete citations all over the place. A prime example is Distributive_property#Notes which refers to who-knows-what books in most of its inline citations. So, is there a better way to flag these articles other than individually tagging every unclear citation? I suppose I could (and for now I will) add a  tag with a custom message. Some1Redirects4You (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big version of this? 

message: I didn't realise that there is a date parameter until seeing one on a bot edit. Perhaps the documentation could mention this (and any other parameters). Declangi (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Debresser, looks fine. Declangi (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date parameter 

message: The example provided in the documentation, 
* Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.
*: Result: Jane Doe refers readers of her book to her journal article covering the experimental methodology.
does not show where the template should go if there is an incomplete citation with reference tags. Should it be this way:
* Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.The New York Times
*: Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.The New York Times
Or should it be this way:
* Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.The New York Times
*: Result: Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.The New York Times
I believe that the template should be included outside the ref tags because a vague reference used multiple times might need a different repair each time it is used, as in my example where only the newspaper's name is given in the reference. Others may disagree. We need to decide and we need to say in the template documentation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, and I'd like to know too, but I don't.  It may depend on context.  In your example, it's plausible that multiple references to one author or periodical would need to be replaced with multiple specific citations.  In other contexts, it may be clear that one book or journal article is being referred to, and tagging one place rather than ten would be a lot less annoying for all participants.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I would consider this as relevant to the other citation maintenance templates (e.g.  ). When there is a problem with the inline citation, the maintenance tags normally appear in the body of the article, so I would expect  to follow suit. The  template is different, as the cited reference may be perfectly valid, but has suffered link rot (which may be remedied by adding the archive parameters). At this present time, the  template page demonstrates placing the template outside the <ref> tags, and my recommendation is that this is how it should appear. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it go inside or outside a <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>? 

message: There seems to be a hunger for a way to include a note / reason / details.
Looking at the monthly parameter usage report there are 400+ uses of , 40+ where  is set via free text and 20+ uses of other undefined parameters.
Should we: just accept that editors will add extra text and document that as a valid  or define  or not worry about all this since we do not currently make use of the extra text?  — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason parameter? 

message: Please change the following:
To:
Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) DesertPipeline (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templated-protected edit request on 29 March 2021