Talk:Citation needed

Tom Scott

Is Tom Scott's use of Citation needed notable enough for mention on this articlePoliceSheep99 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

╝

I really don't think so... CanineCrew | Have a Great Day!! (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed  Nixinova  T  C  04:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Tom Scott's show _Citation Needed_ has 52 episodes over 8 seasons, with a total of 1.7 million views. Isn't that notable enough for at least a mention? I actually ended up here when looking for the article on that show — to my surprise, it doesn't have one yet.SQB (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is, it's been reported on by third parties. Unfortunately I was not able to find any (other then TV tropes, which I don't think we can cite) that go into much more detail then that it exists and it is hosted by Tom Scott, which make for a rather disappointing entry. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed tag.

One source is no longer accessible. Therefore, I removed it and replaced it with "Citation needed" is a characteristic of the policy of verifiability in Wikipedia; it has also become a general internet meme.[citation needed] If you would like to challenge this decision, reply to this section, and let me know on my talk page. CanineCrew | Have a Great Day!! (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How To book by randall monroe

Well, in the book How To from Randall Monroe in page 23 it mentions the citation needed thing. Go check it out https://books.google.com/books/about/How_to.html?id=CZ-rDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.135.149 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't put very trivial things like small mention in a book. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 13:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But it does put Randall's recurring use of it in general as notable. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Podcast

There's a podcast called Citation Needed that's been running for a few years now (in each episode, the hosts discuss and riff on the subject of a particular Wikipedia article). http://uproxx.com/life/best-comedy-podcasts-right-now-to-listen-to/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.225.28 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-Use in German Wikipedia

Would it be worth pointing out that the German language Version of Wikipedia doesn’t use the Citation Needed tag, and why? It seems like a strange exception. Notchrisb (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? What makes you think so? BernardoSulzbach (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's really interesting! There turns out to be a dedicated project page on the German Wikipedia (de:Wikipedia:Citation needed), which (if google translate is to be trusted) explains that there's no such template there and that previous attempts at introducing it have all led to discussions resulting in consensus against. – Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

See also de:Vorlage:Citation needed, de:Vorlage:Quelle fehlt, de:Vorlage:Unbelegt (these give deletion histories). To the OP's question: It might well be worth mentioning this in this article, although it's probably difficult to find external sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

XKCD comic: first use

The article currently states that the XKCD comic was "the first known use of the term outside Wikipedia". The citation given is Know Your Mene, which is regarded as generally unreliable, but it doesn't actually state it was the first use only the first "outside of its original context". Does anyone have any thoughts or sources on this? --Voello _talk 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What

Why was this talk page almost deleted twice

2A02:C7F:861D:6A00:F09C:294D:467A:701A (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It wasn’t. The parent page was. To see why, click the links in the box above where it states that fact. Also, this kinda thing isn’t really what a Wikipedia talk page is for. We’re supposed to be discussing possible improvements to the article here, not expressing bafflement over no longer relevant technical stuff. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

So did I, or did I not, create Citation needed?

I am genuinely curious, did I or did I not create Citation needed? Or is this not an allowed fact in this article? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Aussie Article Writer, would you have a source for Chris Sherlock being the real name of Ta bu shi da yu (aka you)? No issue with the rest on my end. JBchrch talk 22:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The Sydney meetup page shows that I am Ta bu shi da yu. There's a picture and everything. Of course, you would then need to get the earliest diff, and then correlate this to show that Ta bu shi da yu is Chris Sherlock. That would then be a violation of WP:SYNTH. But then again, of course, it would also be self-referential, the article refers to the object. What would have been more awesome was if you had added {{citation needed}} to the text. Then the article could have referred to the object, and to find out about the object you would need to look up the article. To understand that I may or may not be Ta bu shi da yu from what is stated in the article, you could then check what {{citation needed}} means, ad infinitum. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The revert seems to have been done based on a conflict of interest, but my two cents are that having Aussie add his own name to the article wouldn't be any more of a COI than having him add his own username. It's a relevant fact for the article, but the problem with your request is that any sources he provides us about himself will be much more of a COI (and/or self-published sources) than Wikipedia revisions, considering the text of these revisions was not generated by himself. YuriNikolai (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That definitely would not constitute SYNTH. Nardog (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source; and, beyond that, it is plainly WP:UNDUE if no secondary sources cover it. I'm strenuously opposed to inclusion until / unless someone can produce a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, WP:CIRCULAR Clearly opens an exception and says that Wikipedia is a reliable source for citing when an article talks about subjects related to the encyclopedia itself. Not being able to mention pages in this website when talking about their very existance would be silly. YuriNikolai (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, saying someone did something based on one source and saying that someone was named so-and-so in real life based on another would not constitute inadmissible synthesis, provided those sources are reliable. I'm not debating on whether such reliable sources are in fact already available. Nardog (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

SYNTH concerns

@Aoidh: The sentence Randall Munroe has frequently used "[citation needed]" tags for humorous commentary in his writings, including on the 2014 What If? book. is directly sourced to Munroe's book. As you note, it is a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. I reiterate what I said before, who's to say his usage of [citation needed] is "frequent" and for "humorous commentary". That requires the judgement of a secondary source. Also note that the sentence claims broadly that this joke appears "in his writings, including on the 2014 What If? Book". How is a citation directly to the book supposed to support an assertion about the frequency and nature of his own usage of the term across all of "his writings"? It doesn't (the book is merely an example), so this presents a WP:VERIFY problem. Also, without a secondary source, how are we supposed to know that this is WP:DUE information to include? I'm sure we could find a whole lot of "primary source" material that replicates this phenomenon, but without the guidance of secondary sources we'd just end up listing reddit posts here. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC) I'll add that the same problems is manifested in the mention of the YouTube game show. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you state that it was original research in your edit summary? Which argument are you trying to make here? - Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Interpretation of material is a WP:SYNTH problem, which falls under WP:No Original Research. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added sources from Nerdist and the Wall Street Journal which directly support the content in the article. Problem solved. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't need another source in my opinion. Pretty much everything in xkcd is intended to be humorous, 104.187.66.104 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

More things without secondary sources.

We cannot cite Wikipedia itself for this, nor can we cite a Youtube channel for this. Neither source is a WP:RS, and even if we ignored that both are plainly WP:UNDUE due to the total lack of coverage by secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We can, in fact, cite Wikipedia for topics about Wikipedia. An unreliable source is still reliable in proving that it exists. As for the YouTube link, links are to be evaluated on a case by case (WP:YOUTUBE). Neither of those are clearly undue, as the first is necessary context and the second is helpful cultural impact example. YuriNikolai (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've now cited the YouTube playlist related to the YouTube reference/cultural impact example.

PLEASE REVIEW. I have doubts as to whether I completed the citation properly.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated, I'm very new to editing articles. RealsansTTV (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The citation is fine, but it would be good to get a WP:INDEPENDANT source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Italic title?

I believe the text always appears italic, and thought that could be justification for making the title italic. I made the title italic, but then undid myself after reading MOS:ITALICTITLE.

Historically, it was previously added in Special:Diff/969831953, removed in Special:Diff/990626220. 172.254.96.122 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Have removed excess italicization (see Wikipedia:Citation needed where it's not italicized), thanks for pointing it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"citaci[on needed]" in the title of the first image

That looks like a typo, could someone please fix it? (If it is a typo) Yesseruser (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the tag exactly?

Not for the first time, I end up here trying to remember what it is because I need it when editing an article… I believe by using the <nowiki> tag I can demonstrate the required syntax…

{{Citation needed}}

Yup that works!

Also for… reference, in French it’s:

{{référence nécessaire}}

Not sure what the best practice is for capitalization… Kai Carver (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

you might be looking for this instead. - MountainKemono (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)