Template talk:Ref needed

(First topic)

What is the difference between this and template:fact? HyperToad

Never mind. HyperToad

released

When putting this template into a {{flag list}} template, it screws the released one up. Is there a possible fix for that? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Nomenclature

Considering that we used to have {{fact}}, why are we using this one rather than the more widely-used {{fact}} template? Besides, the name goes against the content ({{ref needed}} -> [citation needed] lolwut more like "citeneeded"), which further makes implementing this template more complicated and a chore than it needs to be. I think it should be reverted to {{fact}} or at least make a template redirect. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:33, 6 May 2014 (EDT)

Rename this template "citation needed"

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Keep the name 1-12
This proposal aims to move this template to {{citation needed}}. References consist of two types: citations, which are tagged using the <ref> tag itself; and footnotes, which are tagged using the <ref group="(footnote)"> tag. True to this, the name "ref needed" does NOT make any sense, despite the fact that the template already reads "^{[citation needed]}". If we were to move "ref needed" to "citation needed", then that will fix the problem. That way, we will be able to replace {{citation needed}} with <ref>(reference)</ref>, as well as <ref name="(name)">(reference)</ref> and <ref name="(name)"/>.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: September 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Move to "citation needed"

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: Keep the name "ref needed" as is

1. Hewer (talk) Renaming templates is generally a pointless change. It doesn't accomplish anything except messing up old page revisions and potentially confusing editors.
2. Sorbetti (talk) I have nothing to add, Hewer already said all.
3. Altendo (talk) Per Hewer.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) didn't we already do this? per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) We highly doubt somebody is going to be confused by footnotes when it comes to deploying a [citation needed] tag--if anything, they're more likely to be confused by the fact that the HTML tag is ref, as opposed to something like, say, cite, which is something that is baked into MediaWiki itself, and we imagine would be exponentially worse to change.
6. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Especially Camwoodstock and Hewer.
7. Salmancer (talk) I'm surprised this picked up negative traction so quickly. Anyhow. I never remember this is "ref needed" and always type "citation needed" first; this should probably be called "citation needed" to match the text it outputs. But changing template names has a pretty high bar to clear considering the "breaks old revisions" problem and "ref needed" isn't bad enough to get past that bar. I mean, technically speaking you do use a "ref" tag anyhow.
8. Arend (talk) Yet another proposal by GuntherBayBeee about making unnecessary changes to a template (though this is one of the few instances where he doesn't go needlessly technical nevermind, he STILL goes needlessly technical that makes it all the more confusing; it's just less code than usual); we could keep a tally at this point. Per all.
9. YoYo (talk) Hewer hit the nail on the head. ^{[citation needed]}
10. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Hewer. There is also literally no benefit to this. It even lengthens the amount of time one types to call for this template.
11. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
12. Mario (talk) I've always hated trying to include the tag in articles, confusing between citation needed and refneeded and ref needed and fact (from years ago anyway). This isn't a fix though. As for the body text of the proposal, it's code gibberish. I didn't bother reading.

Comments or suggestions

Actually, question. How important is it that "citation needed" stay visible on old revisions? From an historical standpoint it is, but for people who just want to read old versions of pages "citation needed" isn't really part of the content. Its more like an addendum to the content. If organizing a page is an artform the "citation needed" is less a finishing touch and more a note that the article isn't finished yet, which isn't the most relevant to read if you know you are looking at an old revision and therefore know there are later revisions that are more finished. Salmancer (talk) 14:24, August 25, 2025 (EDT)

Keeping old page revisions intact would normally not be a priority anyway as it's much less important than the current state of the wiki. But in the case of renaming templates, you get the small negative of old revisions being messed up, in exchange for no positives. If there's no benefit to making the change, why bother? (I suppose you could argue the benefit is being more intuitive for newer users, but I don't think that's a good argument since renaming a template that's been under this name for eight years would make things less intuitive for anyone used to the old name.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:03, August 25, 2025 (EDT)

Maybe I would've supported this proposal because the name "ref needed" is so close to "citation needed" that I always get confused on which one is the code and which one is the displayed text, but the solution of "replacing {{citation needed}} with a bunch of code" confuses me more than anything. What is this trying to accomplish? — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 16:07, August 25, 2025 (EDT)