Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 4

message: I think we need to remove the mention of it being deleted from the template. Concensus is already very clear on the deletion page, and honestly its going to make a mess out of pages. As people subst this, they will have to go back and remove this from any page they subst it on until this is removed. Not to mention on articles that may require more than a couple citations, it begins to look messy. --Crossmr 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not to mention it makes it look on the article like you're saying the information in the article may be deleted (which it may, but the fact template shouldn't be saying that)--Crossmr 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: In the recent deletion discussion, Dryguy made a good point:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Template:fact also tends to be over applied. Citing sources is good and necessary, but I think the ease of insertion of the template leads to overuse and cluttering of otherwise good articles. Often, a paragraph expressing many ideas needs only one reference, but the uninformed are likely to come along and litter every sentence with  tags. A better approach is to bring it up on the talk page - that way, cooler, wiser heads prevail. Verifiability is a must, but that doesn’t mean that citations need to be applied with religious fervor to every last little detail."</BLOCKQUOTE>
This is something I've seen myself -- a paragraph where litterally almost every sentence is tagged as needing a cite.  There are better ways to approach things, the talk page being one of them.  There are also other templates that deal with citations and verification that might be more appropriate.  For example, Template:Unreferenced puts a textbox up that can be put before a section that is totally unsourced.  Just because we have a hammer doesn't mean we have to treat everything as a nail.  :-) --DragonHawk 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I try to do is if I find that I'm going to tag 2 or 3 sentences in a paragraph is instead put an unreferenced and then explain on the talk, but I don't just leave it blank. I want a tag there to indicate that something may be wrong with that bit of information. --Crossmr 01:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse in a single article 

message: Is this intentional or a bug?  My initial thoughts are that the printable version
should match the on-screen version. Thanks, GChriss 07:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good, you can't do much with it elsewhere. I propose to add cleanup metadata for cases like this. Frank@217.251.173.14 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the {editprotected}, I don't have any idea what you are requesting. Add {editprotected} back with a clearer request.--Commander Keane 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you define your request a little more?  My understanding is that this template doesn't do anything more than display [citation needed], and extensions would be a good thing.  I not quite sure how the language codes fit in.  Thanks, GChriss 12:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that question for me GChriss? Well if it is, the way I see it is that GChriss requested that this template be printed. 217.251.173.14 disagrees (or at least I disagree), so there is no consensus for the change at the moment. So I removed the {editprotected}. I am also confused about the language codes, but perhaps that is a suggestion about introducing an option to print meta data like this template.--Commander Keane 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the question was for 217.251.173.14, who also added the {editprotected}.  But you did touch on my original question -- why do you think the template should not be printed?  Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template does not show in printable version 

message: has, after realizing that his vandalism was futile, combined vandalism with the addition of some dozens of Fact templates. Now he claims that his vandalism cannot be reverted because he also added some dozens of these tags to the article in the same edits. 
Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? I know it is obvious, but if this is not mentioned somewhere, there might always be users like Anwar who will do it. 
The last time he did this was in the Babri Mosque and Hindu Rashtra articles:
:After making large blankings of sections and references on Babri Mosque    which were reverted, he then adds the fact templates and in the same edit removes the reference (!!), deletes text and references, and adds strong POV to the article.
:Anwar adds fact templates and in the same edit he deletes the references. 
:For example he deletes the reference: "(P. Carnegy: A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow 1870, quoted by Harsh Narain: The Ayodhya Temple/Mosque Dispute, Penman, Delhi 1993, p.8-9, and by Peter Van der Veer: Religious Nationalism, p.153)" and adds the fact template in the same edit for the deleted reference.
:Other examples, where this user adds the fact template and in the same edit deletes the reference, blanks text or references and adds strong pov are       and by possible sockpuppets .
Can we please state a rule somewhere that controversial edits such as vandalism should not be combined in the same edit with the addition of the fact template? --Msiev 08:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't need a special rule.  Avoid instruction creep.  Vandalism isn't allowed, period.  Now, what you're describing isn't outright vandalism, but edit-waring, POV-pushing, etc.  But those aren't allowed, either.  We don't need to say "They aren't allowed with a template, either".  If a user is causing damage, revert the damage.  If a user continues to cause damage, follow the existing producers for handling that.  Using this template is just an attempt to distract others from the real issue, and given that we're having this discussion, that attempt appears to be suceeding.  :)  (Note: I haven't checked into the reported controvery, but I believe my statements apply regardless of how accurate Msiev's statements are.) --DragonHawk 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Anwar saadat's creative combination of vandalism and the fact template 

message: The old category that was used by this template to categorise articles with statements going against the official verfiability policy, ie, Articles with unsourced statements, was deleted in the main because people both think it is unuseful due to its size, and that it is inappropriate to categorise articles going against this particular policy as they distract readers from what is really important...
As such I am calling for someone to suggest a better mechanism, even though I totally disagree with the second argument, and it is just ignoring the problem and making it harder for editors to find articles which are unsourced... I would prefer that some system at all would be available to track these, other than "Whatlinkshere", which is both unordered and hard to track progress with. Ansell 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to replace the old category with? 

message: I added the following statement to the description on the template page, which was instantly reverted by William Allen Simpson.
"especially in the case of biographies of living people.", 
Not only does this addition do no harm to the description in any conceivable way, but it is also directly supported  by a July 12 mailing list post made by Jimbo Wales, in which he stated.
"If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source,
then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not
make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on
what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who
wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!
--Jimbo"
On reviewing the edit history, I notice that Simpson may have merely erred/been lazy in his attempted revert of User:Ta bu shi da yu's earlier edit, but I believe this may still be worth discussion. --tjstrf 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And the change isn't something I see as necessary.--Crossmr 15:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to description? 

message: Could an admin please protect this article? It's becoming a yo-yo and the template is too widely used to be jerked around every day. There's a general rule about templates: the more widely used it is, the more often it is edited - which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. Protection is the solution, it's worked elsewhere. This template needs to be stable and reliable in function and appearance. -- Stbalbach 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose protection, since none of the changes made have lasted very long anyway, and were of minimal significance. Protection is for cases of vandalism, not just normal edits. --tjstrf 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Tjstrf... there was a minor squabble... unless actual warring or vandalism commences there's not much need for protection. (→Netscott) 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All it takes is one vandalism on a popular template to cause major problems, this is not a normal page. :Template:Main was protected for this reason. Also I'm not sure what the resource load issues are every time this template changes if that's a problem. Anyway, this template is popular, you can count on increasing churn from people trying to change it, hope your vigilant! (me dropping off watch list, just a suggestion from past experience and seeing it repeat here). -- Stbalbach 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For sure, it could cause problems, but no more than vandalizing templates like Template:POV or Template:merge might. And those aren't protected. At most, semi-protection might be in order, and only then after repeated vandalism has actually occurred. --tjstrf 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Here's an idea for redesigning this template:
* Use it as before, or optionally thus: 
* It produces something like:  uncited statement[?] 
* The average reader just sees a subtle question-mark citation reference, hinting that there is no citation—if they care, they will perceive that there is a citation lacking.  If they're puzzled, they can click once and forever after remained clued-in.
* Citation cops can add something like the following to their user style sheet, which will make it a bit easier for their overworked eyes to spot:
 .uncited {
   color: pink;
   font-size: gigantic;
   text-decoration: convulsion-inducing-blink;
 }
* Semantic web goodness: imagine a search engine which builds a list of uncited statements from a set of Wikipedia articles (doable today using AWB, I think)
Articles will remain uncluttered by typographic planters warts, but editors in the know [taps side of nose with a conspiratorial look] will be able to spot the varmints from a mile away.  
This would also be compatible with existing usage, sans parameter.  The reference mark will still be highlighted in whatever way an editor pleases, for visibility's sake.[?]  
[Reminder: this template's explicit intent is to encourage editors to supply a reference and not to flag a statement for readers as dubious] —Michael Z. 2006-08-20 05:36 Z
:An excellent idea.  It's frequently ambiguous what exactly is considered in need of reference.  Of course, you'd need to maintain reverse-compatibility. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. An excellent idea. This would have the added bonus of forcing the editor adding the template to clearly mark what they are asking to be cited. Sometimes sentences are tagged and it is not clear what exactly a citation is being requested for. Carcharoth 00:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a cunning plan.... 

message: The more I think about it, the more this seems a bit harsh. What about [citation requested]? RN 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, it should be "needed". TimBentley (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation requested? 

message: …Like right now when the article on Pablo Neruda says in one place that he died of heart failure and in another that he died of cancer? Do we have a more appropriate tag to put on such statements? If not, a new template is probably in order.
If someone comes up with something, may I ask the favor of letting me know on my user talk page? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about articles contradicting themselves?