Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 1

message: Could someone with more template ability look into the problem that this template adds line breaks on lists? Here's an example:
*Most people find him unattractive.
*Most people find him unattractive.Citation neededCategory:Articles lacking sources
The second example pastes (what I think is) the template text directly into the page. Can the template be made to work with lists?Lsommerer 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing the same problem. Template needs to be fixed. --Stbalbach 04:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  template adds line breaks with lists. 

message: I just noticed this template being used on Hugo Kelly, which is currently facing AfD. It just seems a bit odd to me - I thought the preferred way to deal with unsourced claims was to remove them to the Talk page until citations were/could be provided. Thoughts? pfctdayelise 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat :-). Yes, it's common (and accepted under policy) to remove stuff to talk until referenced, but this is a relatively new system which any one is free to use... it's up to you! Dan100 (Talk) 12:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: I think it would be pertinent t rename the cat for this article with something like . Currently, it feeds into the same cat as  and , but has a very different purpose,notably oin that it can be addedto an already well-sourced article without contradiction. Circeus 18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the cat 

message: Folks, I was surprised to see  as a synomym for this page, "Citation needed." For newbies, and even experienced users like me, it's completely misleading and confusing, as it appears in the wikimarkup that this is a declared "fact" rather than something that needs "fact checking."  Can someone provide an explanation for how this has evolved?  -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK,  is deprecated. That was an older (the original?) name for this template, but should no longer be used. Deleting a template that is in wide use is a lot of trouble. It's usually better to just redirect it to the new template, and then "promote" the new name rather than the old one. In time, we should see fewer and fewer calls to fact in the wikimarkup.--Srleffler 06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still see people adding using  to add  to articles. Is it really that much trouble to replace them all with something like  and delete ? --Tifego 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. If you replace every occurence of  with , you are then welcome to submit template:fact for deletion.--Srleffler 05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody surely has a bot/program capable of doing that already. At least a few admins must have access to it. I didn't say it'd be easy for any user like me to do. --Tifego 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has decided that fact is deprecated? It's much easier to type "fact" than "cite needed". SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe somebody should decide it's deprecated. The extra ease of use of a few letters isn't justification for being incredibly confusing to new users. The name  is pretty much the opposite of what that template is used to mean. If ease of use is the main reason for  then why not make and use something like  instead? --Tifego 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A few minutes ago, there were 5152 links to . Ardric47 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not a redirect anymore.  It is actually the template name now. as you can see.  As for if  should be used for the citiation needed template... I'm neutral with it.  Its name is a tad bit weird for the template's type, but I keep adding  when I want to add this template.  Simply put,   won't be going away as a usage of this template anytime soon.  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template name <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> misleading 

message: I think it'd be good if the vertical-align style of the template was changed to top, because at the moment it is seriously borks up the line heights.  In my opinion, the .reference class used for the <ref> tag should use this vertical alignment too, because at the moment it also borks line heights, an effect very evident on heavily-cited articles. I'll demonstrate here:
:First, the present style of superscripting in both <ref> and :
::
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[1] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[citation needed] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
:And again, using my suggested style:
::
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[1] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[citation needed] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
:Or even better:
::
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim.[1] Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim.[citation needed] Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.
:Clearly this template isn't what is at fault here.  It appears to me that this layout problem stems from the styles associated with the  tag itself. --DavidHOzAu 13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alignment

message: I changed the category from :Category:Articles lacking sources to :Category:Articles with unsourced statements, as the old categorization was really not appropriately titled. This template is for articles that do list sources, but have some statements that need citations.
I also changed the formatting of the text from italics to normal. The text is already superscripted and in brackets... the italics didn't make it stand out any more. I won't yell if anyone reverts the formatting, but I really do think that the new category is a better name. —Seqsea (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the discussion about the italics has gone on for some time, but for my two cents, the italics always made sense to me because "citation needed" is a self-reference. Pretty much all self-references in the article text (as opposed to boxes) are supposed to be italicized, such as Template:Selfref, Template:Dablink, and the "otheruses" family. In my opinion, the purpose of the italics isn't to emphasize the "citation needed" but to visually lessen its effect of breaking up an article's normal text. –Sommers (Talk) 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Was about to post this: Putting in a separate category was a good idea, you're right it didn't seem appropriate before. I liked the italics though. I don't know about making it "stand out", but they distinguished it more from the regular text of the article. I added them back for now, I won't insist on it but it seems like they should be there. –Tifego(t) 06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the category associated with this template 

message: Does anyone know why the fact template is being changed to this one? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact

message: How about we use correct typography (remove the sup tag altogether) and :gasp: use the evil <blink> tag to draw attention? --DavidHOzAu 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another typography proposal 

message: I don't know why, but this template is HIGHLY effective. Users often cite things within a single day! Amazing! My thanks to the creators/maintainers :). RN 19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It really does work 

message: Make it possible to use the template like this , so that when the mouse hovers over the link, "Citation needed: what to reference" appears as the tooltip.  This would help point other editors in the right direction and avoid misunderstandings between editors over what is needed to fix up that section.
For example, the text "Object was not designed for verbatim use by people with allergies." shows that we are requesting a citation about said Object not being for verbatim use, instead of about its use by people with allergies.
My rationale is that even if we decide not to use a second parameter in the template, recommending that people add a reason as the second parameter might be useful in helping other editors clean up articles. (Note that this would have the added benefit of reducing viral growth since the template would be replaced quicker.) --DavidHOzAu 09:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for an optional second parameter 

message: Is there a template that can be used when there is a citation but when one thinks it to be somehow "deficient" or "not adequate" ? Like for stating that there is well a citation but an additional one (or more) would be pertinent? Regards. Cretanforever
*I'm looking for one of these, too. -- Steven Fisher 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deficient sources