Template talk:citation needed

Deletion debate
This redirects to text which itself could do with some cleanup. The problem is that users try and use it like the Wikipedia template of the same name which displays [citation needed], whereas this displays a big box. IMO it should be removed when misused or converted to text when used under the ====References=== header, but not left as it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It provides a good list of pages for clean up. Don't remove it without dealing with the issues on the page, mainly providing citations. Conrad.Irwin 17:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue I have with it. See the history girllover for an example of someone accidentally adding a large box to the middle of a sentence. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter what you do, people will persist in making a mess. At least this one is easy to fix. Conrad.Irwin 21:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm raging agreement? Yeah sure, I'm nominating the redirect for deletion, not the template it redirects to. What we don't need is templates to help people make a mess more easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could also create the template. Why has nobody suggested that yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I've now created the template, I'll consider this closed. I nominated the redirect for deletion, not this. Do however RFD the new template if you see fit. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacement
I was told that we should substitute Template:rfv-sense for this, which makes sense since a request for facts/references is a request for the verification of the usage in that sense. Usually one would not see template:fact used to indicate pages should be deleted or to verify the overall existence of a word, but usually intersparsed in a page next to questionable contents.

So anyway, since this has fallen out of use, I am wondering if we could simply redirect this page to RfV-Sense? This would make it easier if people are still using the tag and save the work of replacing it each time. Plus it would also save 5 characters to use it since fact is so short, and easier to remember. Dictabeard 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:fact
As far as I can tell, this template exists because visitors from Wikipedia expect it to, but our verification processes are structured so differently from Wikipedia's that uses go unnoticed before ultimately being corrected to or text six to twelve or eighteen months later. (Every once in a while, someone uses it in some other inventive way, where they should use rft }. People also use in such inventive ways.) I propose we redirect the template to, or delete it. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding "this template exists because visitors from Wikipedia expect it to" I confirm this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oppose redirecting to, because people add this to things other than definitions. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * People also add to things other than definitions, and the people who do that apparently don't know and/or care that RFV is only for verifying senses, whereas the sort of people (visitors from WP) who use  on etymologies and the like might actually click through to WT:RFV and realise that they should use another template... and if they don't, well, it's no worse than explicitly using  on etymologies, is it? And keeping a redirect to our main verification template from the name Wikipedians are used to would help them find our template. But I'm just playing redirect's advocate. - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But they might not click the link and assume the template is being used correctly, while a red link to would be universally recognised as incorrect. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * reference needed -- Liliana • 19:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for making sure it works Liliana. :p 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That, by the way, seems to be the other major use of this template: to dispute comments in discussions. I know many of us are fond of using the template in that way, but I think stopping Wikipedians' rampant misuse of it is more important than preserving the possibility of such (jocular?) use of it in our discussions. Perhaps we could have a template with a non-WP name for such discussion-room uses. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone said the noun sense of red link is in use . — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting the other possibility, which is that some template-literate Wikipedian will import it from Wikipedia to introduce the ways of Wikipedia to this poor, ignorant backwater that knows them not... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:fact can be protected, if that becomes a problem. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it deserves a vote. We could certainly use a mechanism whereby "passers-by" can request proof of something without being regular Wiktionarians. Dunno how best to do it. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should create an edit filter to prevent its use in mainspace, with a message that directs them to something like WT:WFW. If we let people use it, the main result is that we'll be deceiving them- most won't realize their error, since there aren't nearly enough that actually take the time to look at or troubleshoot the results of their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Iff we can display a custom warning when people are blocked from using it, I think that's a great idea. But we've had trouble getting filters to display custom text (e.g. the filter than warns people about &lt;ref&gt;s without &lt;references/&gt; doesn't display the custom text it should). - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone just added it to an entry in the Wikipedia style when they should have used . As long as this template exists there will always be people who think it does the same as it does on Wikipedia, not knowing that Wiktionary works different. 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After removing it from the few content pages it was still used on, I redirected this template to, as I note Dictabeard also suggested on Template talk:fact. If you think it must be deleted instead, OK (but leave an explanation / link to Template:rfv-sense in the deletion summary, please). - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a note to the documentation. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Usage Notes sections
I came to this template looking for something to append to a questionable "Usage notes" section. None of the suggested alternative tags seem to fit this use case. In fact "Usage notes" seems one of the few contexts where "citation needed" may have been appropriate.

Any suggestions?

--5.149.172.74 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)