Template talk:More citations needed/Archive 5

message: Kudos to Exploding Boy for creating this template. I hope that it will encourage editors to reference their edits and fact check the edits of others a bit more. It currently reads:
	This article is missing citations and/or footnotes.  
<BR> To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines and conform to our NPOV policy, please provide appropriate citations.
Category:Articles lacking sources 
Would anyone object to the following change:
	This article is missing citations and/or footnotes.  
<BR> To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines and conform to our policies regarding NPOV and verifiability, please provide appropriate citations and/or footnotes.
Category:Articles lacking sources 
-AED 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested change

message: Other than being more obvious (intrusive?), what's the practical difference between this template and ? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just chose it over  because (perhaps unintentionally) it applies to cases where  is misleading.  For example, in Stalag Luft III, a general list of references is supplied, but the article is missing explicit footnotes that identify the sources for various statements in the article.  This distinction is a useful one (and one reason cited for not deleting this template in the deletion vote mentioned above.  66.167.139.237 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that particluar case, why not simply add  to the points needing references? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine when you only need a few footnotes, but it looks much worse than this template when you have too many  tags in the article, plus it takes longer to track down every statement needing a footnote. --Lethargy 20:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant?

message: I suggest we change the word "appropriate" to "specific", since that seems to be the problem this template addresses --SteveMcCluskey 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! That language change is subtle, but helpful. --Yatta! 06:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Citations 

message: I would like to suggest that we add code to this template so that articles tagged with it are added to the Articles lacking sources category.  I realize this template is designed to be used on articles that provide some sources, but do not have proper in-line citations or footnoting.  But my concern is that this template doesn't add the article to any category that editors routinely check for article that need cleanup, and thus might not get attention as quickly as it should.  This category seems like the closest match: its description says "Wikipedia articles that are missing citations belong in this category." As an alternative, we could add the tagged article to Category:Wikipedia references cleanup, but it should definitely be listed somewhere. --Satori Son 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it now includes them it categories Articles lacking sources from December 2006 | All articles lacking sources  
Jeepday 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add tagged articles to ''Category:Articles lacking sources''

message: Since the great majority of readers aren't experienced editors, I think that "NPOV" should be changed to "Neutral Point Of View" in the template: non-wikipedians will simply not understand what NPOV means. If nobody objects within the next few days, I'll change it. --Storkk 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change proposed

message: I suggest that this template should be prodded. There are several users who indulge in spamming it aggressively on every page they come across. I don't think that even 5% of articles in the project have inline citations. If the authors of the template want to see it transcluded to every WP page, perhaps they should set up a bot which would uglify the articles en mass. What is more important, I don't recall a single instance when the transclusion of this template led to some positive result, i.e., to addition of footnotes. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prod it? 

message: Talk:John_McCain#Straw_poll:_Use_of_Citation_Tag. Article has over 53 citations but a user wants a banner at the top of the article that says "Citations missing". When are enough citations enough? -- Stbalbach 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, there is no magic number of citations that any article should have. The determinant is whether there are a significant number of uncited claims within the article that need attention. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are in-line uncited claims a free pass to avoid WP:Verifiable? If the article has that many uncited claims, maybe the problem is better solved by removing the uncited claims. -- Stbalbach 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be correct, but this isn't the place for such a discussion. Perhaps WP:CITE? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are 53 citations enough? 

message: I see  has a date parameter that may be useful in finding articles that have been tagged for a long time. What do people think of adding this functionality to this template also? Cheers. SeanMack 08:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Added to the template code by Rich Farmbrough, and I have added instructions for its use. -- Satori Son 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we have a date?

message: I've changed the category associated with this template from :Category:Wikipedia references cleanup to :Category:Articles lacking sources. The purpose of :Category:Wikipedia references cleanup is to clean up the citation style on articles that already have citations. The purpose of this template seems to be to request citations that don't exist at all (similar to ). —Seqsea (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: I've made repeated use of  in the past, and kept meaning to establish and use a different template to deal with the subset of the unreferenced articles where a list of general references are provided but are missing inline citations.  Now that I've found this one, I'll start using it in those cases.
It's quite large though, so attempts to make it more compact would be appreciated.  
Also, for articles which appear (admitted subjectively) to have a reliable and lengthy-enough list of general references, I'm thinking this template, or a version thereof, could be placed under the section heading for the article's eference list instead of at the top of the article.  I'll check this talk page from time to time to see if a version tailored for such a use gets created.
Thanks to everyone who got this started and helped it survive the TFD discussion.  66.167.137.9 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See . —Seqsea (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that, unlike the other related templates, the second (not-bold) sentence is not . Changing that would bring it in line with the unofficial standard, and make take less space. If there are no objections I'll make the change in a couple of days if no one beats me to it. --Eitch 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely a useful distinction but needs to be more compact (also a suggestion) 

message: The page Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles list the location to place this tag as “To be Agreed”.  I would suggest that the proper place would be at the top of the reference section. Jeepday 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location to place this tag

message: This really should be probably be catagorized in :Category:Articles lacking reliable references, rather than :Category:Articles lacking sources.  The category it is in now is for articles with no sources in any form.  Maybe their is a better categoy than the one I suggeseted but the current one is not a good one to to use.--BirgitteSB 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm ... it's tough - but it seems like the reliable references one is for pages with citations, just crappy ones. I think the best place would be the same place that  puts them, :Category:Articles with unsourced statements (it can also by done by date "Category:Articles with unsourced statements since [date]). Essentially, this template is just an alternative to a lot of fact templates, and if everything that had this and everything that had fact went in the same place - then editors going through the categories/backlog would have an easier time.danielfolsom 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and make the change - since the one it's going to now clearly says it shouldn't be there.danielfolsom 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it makes sense for this to agree with the fact template. CMummert · talk 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Categories 

message: Given that we have   and  I think that this template should be redirected to . The wording of this template is not a precise as  because WP:PROVEIT does not specify the type of citations to use (no preference is given to footnotes over Harvard style citations) so the wording "or needs footnotes." is redundant and therefore I think the wording of  "	This article needs additional citations for verification" is better. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to Refimprove

message: Why do the instructions say to put it on the main page? This template (and many other editorial templates) belongs on the discussion page.  It does nothing to contribute to the facts or navigation to other similar subjects that are on the article page. 
This template (and many others) gives an opinion which needs to have some specifics to at least be considered  a valid observation.  This class of template is not much different than a project template that offers a rating.  Those are placed on the discussion page.
The template itself calls attention to the scholarly minded that some footnotes and references would be nice.  Comments could be placed below the template on the discussion page.  These would be a sign of collaborative, scholarly effort and cite some specific places where a cite should be placed. Otherwise placement of this template is just lazy academic graffiti or is a sign of some robot wikipedia tagger who is keeping score on template tags. 
I just don't get it.  Could somebody enlighten me about the placement. Thanks --Rcollman (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. I've seen several articles where this tag was slapped on over a year ago, with no explanation on the talk page, and everyone seems to just ignore it. -- Avenue (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Like the template, not the instructions

message: Have a look at User:Thinboy00/Template editing#Make a new template, or retool an old one? (please read, title is counterintuitive).  Why don't we do that?  --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles#Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS).  Please comment there and not here.  --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Unified Citations Complaint System (GUCCS) 

message: I've started a sandbox for this page which includes some updates to the style to match the prevailing ambox layout. just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the default message was changed from article or section to article. Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the prevailing style. If the template is added to a section, then "section" should have already been specified; there is therefore no need to be ambiguous if it is not specified at the top of the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks,  PeterSymonds (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style tweaks 

message: There has been some controversy regarding the usefulness of this template and its redundancy. This can be seen at this template's more recent two TfD's (see top of this page).  An alternative to deletion is deprecation (see Template:Qif for an example, but note that it is possible to deprecate a template without disabling its functionality -- namely, by prepending  and retaining existing code.).  There has been intermittant discussion on the talk page, and wider community input is desired.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinboy00 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2009
: Actually, I reckon this template is better worded than  is. This template clearly asks for things which are not cited to be cited, whereas  simply valuely asks for "more references". I agree that there is no need to have two templates, but I'd prefer the merge to be into this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually,  does not simply ask for "more references" it states "This article needs additional citations for verification." -- no mention of references -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC:Proposal to deprecate 

message: Can an admin please remove the  from the template? It adds all pages with this template to :Category:Articles with unsourced statements and :Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Both of those categories are only for articles with  or . Thank you. Samwb123T-C-@ 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those categories are populated by quite a few templates, this one among them. See e.g. the category page. Debresser (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The current wording does not make a lot of sense. Particularly now that a list of general references are not considered on their own to be adequate as citations and that to meet policy requirements if text needs a citation it must be an inline citation.
The major problem is that "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes." is not clear. It implies that citations are separate from footnotes but in most articles that carry in-line citations the citations are in footnotes (If not then then are in parentheses). This template would be less confusing if the first sentence was dropped.
The table in the documentation section is also inaccurate, because despite the name  it does not ask for references it states "This article does not cite any references or sources". and then asks "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources." No where does it ask for references. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: March 2011

message: This template was obviously written by a cart00ney.  Footnotes have no relevance for copyright law purposes.  Adding a footnote would not be a defense for large blocks of text copied verbatim.  The lack of a footnote where only an idea has been taken is not copyright infringement.  Citations are good for Wikipedia, but they have nothing to do with copyright.  This template should not falsely imply otherwise.  Savidan 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove copyright language 

message: Remove the copywrite language or unprotect.—Machine Elf 1735 13:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: opps... please. Thanks—Machine Elf 1735 01:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Done. Ucucha (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the copywrite language - Fourth request 

message: This redirect seems like it should point to  instead of . There's some ambiguity in the phrase "citations missing". Does it mean some or all? I think that "all" is the stronger connotation. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Unreferenced instead of Refimprove? 

message: Hello, 
I saw the note "citation needed" and "timeframe." How do I add the citation and timeframe info? I couldn't find how to do that. 
 
Thank you for your assistance,
Julie
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie from Monroe Systems (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request 

message: * Please make your request on the talk page of the article where you're requesting the changes be made.
* Also, 
Regards,  Spintendo  21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 25-APR-2019

message: Twinkle needs to be updated so that it can display the template again - the current version does not list the template for whatever reason. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broke template for Twinkle 

message: Please change the code in  where it now says:
| fix   = Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
| removalnotice = yes Making it instead say:
| fix   = Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
| removalnotice = yesThis will add  which is appropriate for a maintenance tag  suggesting the inclusion of additional references. The change is reflected at Template:More citations needed/sandbox and has been tested using Special:ExpandTemplates with no adverse occurrences indicated. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -- /Alex/21 11:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is a major change, and I suggest you obtain consensus for such a modification. The refimprove template is used on thousands of pages and the tag is now 50% bigger. Besides, it is now inconsistent with other maintenance templates. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and will comply.--John Cline (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The RfC is now underway and located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding Twinkle maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2019 

message: ;Before
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "(article title)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
;After
This article needs additional citations. Please help by adding reliable source citations. Find sources: "(article title)" news, newspapers, books, scholar, JSTOR. 
;Removed bits
* "for verification"
* "improve this article"
* "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
* "(Learn how and when to remove this template message)"
These are superfluous. 
;Things to add:
Should have a link to a talk page section for discussion, at which place the above superfluous details can be mentioned. 
;Final
This article needs additional citations. Please help by adding reliable sources citations. Talk section. Find sources: "(article title)" news, newspapers, books, scholar, JSTOR. 
-ApexUnderground (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trim 

message: Actually, the template:More citations needed doesn't link any kind of ope source of informations, which is released under an open-license or a public-domain-equivalent license. It would be helpful to  add in the template a link to DOAJ or to the WP List of open-access journals, some of which are peer-reviewed. 
This would be compliant with Wikipedia as an open and collaborative project. It also would enable user to make a back-up copy into the Internet Archive, archive.is or similar websites for their long-term digital preservation, avoiding to have broken links to be checked inti the WP articles. Hope it helps.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The template diplays the same message, maybe someone prefer closed and proprietary sources, even if this type of sources isn't compliant with Wikipedia verifiability rules.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  How would you suggest the "find sources" portion of the template be formatted? I see https://doaj.org/ has the ability to search but there are far too many open-access journals to list individually. Perhaps a system like the GeoHack page that is linked to by  template might be created, but that would require some coordination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  And DOAJ only has 439,560 entries. It is not likely to return many good results. I tried on five topics and only got good results on one search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Effectively, it seems that they have only the following data jump https://doaj.org/public-data-dump, with no care for unsubscribed Internet users trying to access and take advantage/promote their Open Access contents. To say a little, it's bad designed and worse organized. I hope some of them casually reading this discussion will have the courtesy to publish a Web Page with a basic and simple categorization of their journals by language, publishing house, subject matter and so on. Otherwise, if they just have one like this -like probably is-, I hope someone will have the courtesy to put it in a more easily viewable position.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional link to DOAJ or to the List of open-access journals 

message: The TemplateData for this template seem to be outdated. They don't reflect how the parameters actually behave. I propose some fixes, but I wanted to consult here about them before I attempt them on this very popular template.
		"talk": {
			"label": "See talk page",
			"description": "Any value (such as 'y') for this parameter will result in the addition of 'See talk page for details.' to the tag",
			"type": "boolean",
			"required": false,
			"example": "y"
		},
I propose replacing with:
		"talk": {
			"label": "Section name on talk page",
			"description": "Section name on talk page where further information or discussion can be found",
			"type": "string",
			"required": false
		},
in line with other templates. This template uses an Ambox. Just read the documentation there. That means that the text in the "talk" parameter becomes part of the link to the talk page, as a section. It's not a boolean value at all.
Just look:
::::::::
		"small": {
			"label": "Small",
			"description": "Set to 'y' to make the template box smaller",
			"example": "y",
			"type": "boolean",
			"default": "n"
		}
I propose replacing with:
		"small": {
			"label": "Small",
			"description": "Enter any text to make the template box smaller. Leave blank to leave it unchanged.",
			"example": "y",
			"type": "boolean",
			"default": "n",
			"autovalue": "y"
		}
Once again, as an Ambox, and based on the specific code in this template, any value at all in the "small" parameter causes the box to change into a small, left-hand side version. Despite what the Ambox page says, "left" is a meaningless value in this template. Meanwhile, an empty value leaves it unchanged. "n" or "no" in the parameter also turns it into a small box, against what it currently says, so it needs to be changed. The default value may as well be "y" also, but it's entirely unnecessary if an autovalue is present.
Example:
In addition to these critical updates, I propose some additional updates of convenience.
		"1": {
			"label": "Type (typically section)",
			"description": "This parameter allows an editor to replace the default word \"article\" with another word, usually the word \"section\"",
			"type": "string",
			"required": false,
			"default": "article",
			"example": "section"
		},
I propose adding 
			"autovalue": "section",
in line with some other templates. The only time anyone's going to be clicking this parameter is to turn the notice into a section notice. Save everyone some time.
		"date": {
			"label": "Month and year",
			"description": "The month and year that the need for citations is identified, such as 'June 2013'; may use '' template instead; if not specified, this parameter will be filled automatically by a bot",
			"type": "string",
			"required": false,
			"autovalue": " ",
			"suggested": true
		},
I propose adding
			"example": "June 2013",
in line with other templates, to make it just that bit more obvious for those who blank the box and don't know how to click the question mark.
Hopefully these proposals go down well. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just make the fixes. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:More_citations_needed/doc#Template_data|TemplateData]] fixes 

message: Your feedback would be welcome at this discussion concerning the impact of using  in templates that have "section" variants, such as , and others. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback sought in discussion about find sources in reference templates 

message: Recent changes to a series of templates (i.e.,  (diff),  (diff), and  (diff) ) and their analogous *_section templates altered the output of these templates to add the output of  to the template display. In this template, this occurred in revision 880434394.  These changes were originally requested in this discussion, and a related follow-up Rfc discussion is here.
The intent of this change was desirable, but caused some undesirable knock-on effects to existing invocations of the analogous section-level templates (i.e., (, ). These undesirable effects are described in detail along with a proposed fix here. The fix requires changes to templates in pairs, and the fix was implemented for templates  (diff), and  (diff) on July 2. The same undesirable effects are present in this template and the analogous section-level template. They need to be fixed in the same way as  and  were.
Fixing this pair of templates means creation of, or changes to six files :
:Note: this is a transcludableed section; if redlinks appear below then just ignore that step or create the files.
* sandboxes: (/sandbox and  section/sandbox), with changes similar to the ones at Template:Unreferenced (diff) and Template:Unreferenced section (diff)
* additional testcases to be added to /testcases and  section/testcases, similar to the ones at Template:Unreferenced/testcases#Find and Template:Unreferenced section/testcases#Find; and finally:
* doc file changes to /doc and  section/doc similar to the ones at Template:Unreferenced/doc (diff) and Template:Unreferenced section/doc (diff). 
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Hey there, no idea how traveled this talk page is, but is there any way someone could add a  parameter here? In these edits I added an explanation for why I was flagging it (knowing that it wouldn't display) but I think it should display! Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Given that you already can (and did) use  param in the wikicode, I don't see an advantage in displaying it. The reason is, that the banner is aimed at editors not readers, and only a tiny number of editors will pick up the gauntlet and attempt to do something about it the missing references. When they do, they will see the "reason" that you left. All those other editors that don't follow up, will have to just skip even more text than they do now. Can you think of a use case where having a visible "reason" param would lead to the article having references added more quickly than otherwise, to offset the additional bother?  After all, the underlying reason is always the same: there aren't enough references for the amount of content in the section or article. Or, am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason parameter? 

message: Template:More citations needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Elli (talk | contribs) 19:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

text: aah, hate to do this to ya but this is kinda a flaw of the TfD process. Maybe the TfM can be closed per SNOW, but until then the tag has to remain. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination 

message: Based on the TfD I was curious whether we would be able to have the template detect whether it's in a section and then automatically toggle its "section" param. If possible, that would save a lot of headache. (not watching, please ) czar 17:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section detection 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:Reimprove. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Template:Reimprove until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:Reimprove" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:MCN. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#Template:MCN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:MCN" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Bold suggestion: Replace :File:Question book-new.svg with :File:OOjs UI icon notice-warning.svg, in line with Wikipedia's mobile interface and aiding its ongoing transition into more modern web design. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This would probably be controversial, so let's try to get a consensus first. Also, do you intend to make this change across more templates, such as , , etc? If so, maybe a broader RfC would be a good idea. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, totally forgot I made this request. Yes, that's the idea. Where would I start such an RfC? Throast (talk | contribs) 01:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd start by asking for opinions on WP:VPIL, if you make a post there people will discuss it a bit and if it looks good, point you in the right direction for a formal RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 September 2021 

message: Template:More citations needed has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for the same reasons as Template talk:Unreferenced#Edit request to complete TfD nomination. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request to complete TfD nomination 

message: User:Mathglot dislikes these good examples:
*
*
*
*0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are neither comprehensible, nor correct. They would have to be both, to be added to the /doc page.  Also: there's no need to post the same message at two discussion forums, as you did here, and here, at my Talk page.  One posting is sufficient. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  good examples