Template talk:Citation needed

WikiProject Inline Templates
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Inline Templates, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Wikipedia's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Some discussion of this template may take place at the project's talk page, rather than here.
 
WikiProject Reliability
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Fully protected edit request on 13 May 2019[edit]

A protected redirect, Template:Citation required, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Citation needed]] 
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Template:Citation needed]] {} {} }} 
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  11:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Martin! Just curious as to why that redirect still populates Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages? As a template editor, I can edit it (and thanks for that as well), so it's not cascade-protected, and yet it is still in the fully-protected category? Just wondered. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Good question, and I have no idea. I thought a null edit would fix it, but doesn't. Perhaps a bug with Template:Redirect category shell? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Haven't found anything gnarly at the shell nor at {{R template-protected}}. The redirect was at some point cascade protected, but is not on that list anymore. It also hasn't landed in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I'll see what else I can find and also get another pair of eyes on it. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears that there is something about the {{Redirect category shell}} template, or one of its meta-templates/magic words, that causes a redirect to populate the wrong protection category. In the {{Redirect category shell/sandbox}}, I narrowed it to the move-protection code, and unless there is something going on with the #switch function, I can't figure it out. It seems way above my pay grade, and yet it needs to be fixed. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  12:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that {{pp-move}} is expecting to be used on a page move-protected at extendedconfirmed level. It's pretty rare used alone; it almost always occurs in conjunction with edit-protection to the same level. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not move-protected at extendedconfirmed though. it's protected at templateeditor. Not that it matters, the problem is that the protectionCategories in Module:Protection banner/config doesn't have entries that match for either level for move protection.
That table has a "key" made up of five components: duration ("indef" or "temp"), namespace, reason, level, and action. "all" is a wildcard. The key for pp-move on that redirect is "indef|template|all|templateeditor|move". Nothing matches that until it gets to the ultimate wildcard "all|all|all|all|all". Someone might add an entry for e.g. "all|all|all|all|move" to catch move protections that aren't sysop level, or "all|template|all|templateeditor|all" to catch templateeditor protections of templates for non-edit actions, or just change the value for "all|all|all|all|all" (plus a few others that have "all" in the fourth component) to something more generic like Category:Wikipedia protected pages (and also adding versions with "sysop" as the fourth component to maintain the Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages). Anomie 22:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────────────
To Anomie, Redrose64 and MSGJ: this has been fixed in the {{Rcat shell}}. Just needed equal signs. Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: Your "fix" made it not apply {{pp-move}} at all for move protection at sysop and templateeditor levels (but it still will for extendedconfirmed level). I doubt that's what you intended. Anomie 19:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I reverted this edit. In a construct like
{{#switch: {} |sysop|templateeditor|extendedconfirmed={} }} 
this means "if the move protection level is any one of , use the template {{pp-move|small=yes}}; otherwise do nothing"; whereas in a construct like
{{#switch: {} |sysop=|templateeditor=|extendedconfirmed={} }} 
this means "if the move protection level is sysop, do nothing; if the move protection level is templateeditor, do nothing; if the move protection level is extendedconfirmed, use the template {{pp-move|small=yes}}; otherwise do nothing". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
To Redrose64 and Anomie: thank you very much and... interesting. That fix definitely removed redirects from Category:Wikipedia fully protected pages, so I guess that puts it back to square one. I had isolated the problem to the move protection switch, and was surprised when the addition of the equal signs fixed the category sort, but I had no idea of the other problem it caused. So back to "Never give up, never surrender" mode. Thanks again! Paine Ellsworthed. put'r there  21:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Date filter needed[edit]

At present, if the date field is incorrectly populated e.g. with a citation as happened here, the template generates a spurious category.

This flaw was drawn to my attention by user:Liz and user:DexDor.

Please could an experienced template editor change this to generate e.g. "Articles with unsourced statements from uncertain date" if the date parameter is unrecognisable? – Fayenatic London 21:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Options may include (1) checking things like the length of the (supposed) date in the CN template (i.e. as suggested by FL), (2) checking whether the dated category exists (using ifexist) in the CN template, (3) using a bot (e.g. the bot that dates undated CN tags) to adjust CN tags with bad parameters, (4) referring to this in any process notes associated with WantedCategories. Presumably, there's a similar issue with other templates. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
(2) is already picked up by Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template (as indeed it was with the Babytai Kamble example); (3) is one of the tasks of AnomieBOT (talk · contribs). I don't think there's anything to do here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
If the template knows the date is invalid then, surely, it shouldn't attempt to categorize for that date. The incorrect tag wasn't fixed by the bot in the 10 day period (before the tag was fixed by FL). DexDor (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Consider the case of somebody in Australia editing early on 1 July 2019, going by local time; this could well be late on 30 June 2019 going by UTC. If they go by the local calendar and use {{cn|date=July 2019}}, it should still be categorised by date and not left uncategorised. The monthly cleanup categories are created by AnomieBOT as required.
Then there is the case of an article which had some {{cn}} with dates well in the past, these are removed, or their dates altered to the current date with the effect that the monthly cat goes empty and is deleted under WP:CSD#C1. Then the recent edits are judged to be detrimental, so the article is reverted to an older version for which there is general consensus. The cleanup cats should show once again, and not be suppressed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why if the template knows that the date parameter is incorrect (and hence it puts the article in Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template) it also (attempts to) put the article in the category for that (invalid) date - which shows as a redlink category and in WantedCategories. DexDor (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Your example wasn't bot-fixed because AnomieBOT doesn't try to fix date parameters that are more than a reasonable number of characters long, to avoid deleting half the article if someone somehow screws up the }} or something like that. Anomie 12:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Template:CM" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:CM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. InvalidOS (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)