Template talk:Citation needed

This works in most cases but sometimes it does not appear inline with text. Not sure if it breaks too much stuff but it should do for now Kostas

There is a problem rn on Post-purchase EULA modification with it inline. The second use of it causes all following text in the paragraph to be placed inside a quote block for some reason. Mingyee (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

   Adding paragraph tags tends to fix this but I still am unsure why it is behaving so erratically. Fixed on the eula page, thanks fo the link Kostas (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Add ‘nocat’ parameter to remove category

Hi, I don’t think this is implemented so I want to ask if you can add a nocat parameter to remove the category given by this. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to fact that this template connects to Articles in need of work, I have to agree. There are a lot of pages with only 1 or 2 of those that only need a small fix, yet get added in the same category with pages that might have a dozen or more. It seems overkill in my opinion, if an article is otherwise good quality. ButI can also see the argument for why it's added.

@Mr Pollo @Keith pinging, since this was a recent change yall spoke about Beanie Bo (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the articles in need of work is intended to be used for people who want to fix something, and are looking for articles to do it on - the category itself is not a warning to readers (that's the purpose intended to be filled by the notices), so I don't think we need to worry about the category negatively labelling the article.

I do agree though that if a user turns up after clicking on an 'article in need of work' article, they might be initially confused by what is actually meant to be wrong with an article that contains only a 'citation needed' thing somewhere on it. Might be worth implementing the option. Is this a protected template or can anyone edit it? i'd be happy for someone to have a go at implementing a nocat parameter, provided it doesn't break existing citation needed templates. Keith (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s protected, but I can attempt to make a draft of it myself if you wish. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Keith that the category is supposed to help editors easily find issues to fix with articles. Regarding the potential confusion, we can add a category description that better explains what the category covers.

Including the category in the Citation needed template is critical for keeping an active list of articles that need citations as editors might not manually add the category itself, but across wikis the Citation needed template is universal. Mr Pollo (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Could be a separate category? where it's separated from the main 'articles in need or work' list Keith (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is it not already? I mean here are the categories I know of:

• Category:Articles with verification concerns or other deficiencies
• Category:Articles requiring expansion
• Category:Articles_in_need_of_additional_work

While pasting these, I realized the Incomplete template uses 2 categories, including the in need of additional work and the same category as the citation needed. By making a new category for the citation needed template, I feel it would be more complicated as there will be 2 categories for verification issues. Mr Pollo (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand how these categories are organized now. I’ll make a new category for this template. Mr Pollo (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it would be too controversial if we just made you a moderator to give you the ability to do that stuff, assuming you're fine with that?

You're certainly contributing enough! Keith (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m okay with being mod, but I assume I shouldn’t do anything else apart from, for example, just moving a page w/o leaving a redirect? AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Given your general level of interaction with, and understanding of, the site - I think we'd be happy to have you on the team fully! I've asked around and there don't seem to be any objections. You've already got to #5 on the edits of all time ranking so seems almost silly not to mod you lol. Keith (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)